Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock,

ABSENCE OF MR. SPEAKER AND CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS

The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence, through illness, of Mr. SPEAKER and of the unavoidable absence of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS.

Whereupon Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU, The FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Ships' Cargoes

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has about cargo in Great Britain waiting for late uplift because of ships' slower sailing.

The Minister for Aerospace and Shipping (Mr. Michael Heseltine): We have made inquiries with the British Shippers' Council, the Institute of Freight Forwarders and the Chamber of Shipping about delays in the shipment of cargo from this country. But we have received no evidence that any significant volume of cargo has been held up here because of the slower sailing of ships.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: In view of the importance of keeping exports moving, will my hon. Friend report on the discussions taking place in OECD about bunkering and will the Government do all in their power to retain the traditional bunkering pattern?

Mr. Heseltine: Certainly we recognise the importance of maintaining a bunkering pattern that will provide the maximum help to our shipping industry. We support the recommendation from the OECD discussions that all Governments


should give priority to the supply of oil for bunkers in accordance with the normal pattern.

Aviation Fuel

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what he now estimates to be the likely level of shortfall of supply of aviation fuel; and what effect he estimates this will have upon the finances of British Airways and other United Kingdom carriers.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Energy is examining the prospects for all fuels. While he cannot at present predict what the level of availability of aviation fuel might be in the coming months, he has no reason to believe that the incoming supply will deteriorate in the near future. In the present period of adjustment to the new régime of fuel scarcity and in the absence of firm information on future supplies, the extent of any financial damage to the airlines cannot yet be estimated.

Mr. Tebbit: Can my hon. Friend say, however, whether there is any risk, at least at present, of cut-backs in services to the level at which people will be unable to find seats? Can he confirm that so far there have been no such cuts and that all the passengers who wanted to be carried have been carried?

Mr. Heseltine: As far as I am aware, there has been little hardship to the travelling public through lack of availability of seats. There has had to be a certain amount of diversion from one flight to another, but I believe that the airlines have been agreeably surprised at the way in which they have been able to handle the traffic on offer, although there has been some dislocation.

Mr. Mason: I can understand the uncertainty about seats on the Government side of the House. Does the Minister remember announcing that he was cutting back supplies of fuel oil to the British airline industry by 55,000 tons from 20th November to 31st December? What effect has that cut-back had on the industry? Secondly, how was it monitored? Thirdly, what has been the reduction in supplies since 1st January?

Mr. Heseltine: The cut-back which I announced for the period mid-November

to the end of December was, if I remember correctly, of the order of magnitude that the right hon. Gentleman mentions. The cut-back was monitored by broadly allocating to airlines 90 per cent. of the 1973 uptake which applied to industry at large, but there was a certain amount of adjustment to take account of the special factors which I mentioned in the announcement. The overall position has been that British and foreign airlines have managed to exist within the reduced levels which we announced, but there is an appeal system whereby airlines which feel that they have particular problems have come back to my Department.

Mr. Mason: What has been the reduction in supplies since 1st January? The Minister announced a reduction only up to 31st December. What guidance has he given to the charter operators about holiday flights in the summer?

Mr. Heseltine: I think the right hon. Gentleman will remember that I announced a subsequent fuel allocation for the period of January. I do not have the figure of the tonnage of fuel allocated, but I can easily let the right hon. Gentleman have it. I believe that the charter side, as with the scheduled side, has managed to live within the system that we have instigated.

Mr. Jessel: Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that the shortage of aviation fuel and the cut-back in flights have produced an unforeseen advantage in that they have reduced the aircraft noise nuisance suffered by people living around airports? If flights are cut back now for reasons of fuel shortage, can they not be cut back in normal times to reduce suffering from aircraft noise?

Mr. Heseltine: I think my hon. Friend will accept that the degree of hardship and difficulty which has been imposed at short notice as a result of the fuel shortage is a more Draconian measure than we would have accepted in normal circumstances. But I accept that there has been an opportunity for the airlines to examine again their patterns of operation in the light of changed circumstances, and I would think that there would be a noise benefit flowing from that.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will the Minister go further and suggest to the airlines that they should consider their pattern of


operations in the light of what they have been able to do in the present emergency?

Mr. Heseltine: I believe that the airlines have found it necessary to look at their pattern of operations as a result of the fuel restrictions and that they will learn whatever lessons are appropriate as a consequence.

Regional Development Fund

Dr. John A. Cunningham: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the European Economic Community Regional Development Fund.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): No. Sir. I have at present nothing to add to the statement my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made on Wednesday 16th January.

Dr. Cunningham: Is the Minister aware that, if Press reports are to be believed, the size of the fund is likely to be decided by almost every consideration except the needs of the regions? Will he assure the House that the Government intend to do something about the far too crude designation of peripheral and central areas, and that in doing so they will not surrender the policy of industrial development certificate control that we have in this country?

Mr. Grant: I do not accept the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. We have always said that we attach considerable importance to the setting up of the regional fund. It is very important to the regions, from one of which the hon. Gentleman comes. His area will be one of the qualifying areas and we shall be fighting hard for it, as for other development areas.

Mr. Marten: What was the original maximum size of the fund which the Government hoped to get?

Mr. Grant: I refer my hon. Friend to the statements by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who has said that the Commission's proposal of 2,250 million units of account over three years was a substantial sum.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: As it is obvious that any prospects of a meaningful re-

gional fund have been destroyed by the aggressive selfishness of our partners in the EEC, would the Minister care to tell the House, so that we may evaluate the prospects of a regional fund in a more general context, what concrete benefits have come to Britain in the 13 months of our membership of the EEC?

Mr. Grant: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. He will have noticed the substantial move made recently by the West German Government which would provide countries such as the United Kingdom, Italy and Ireland with substantially what the Commission proposed. Representatives of the West German Government said at a meeting I attended only on Friday that they regard regional policy as the key to the future growth and development of the Community. The hon. Gentleman's strictures on our partners are unjustified.

Mr. Biffen: Which basis of allocation do the Government prefer, that suggested by the Germans or that suggested by the European Commission?

Mr. Grant: There is to be a further round of negotiations in two days' time, and it would be unwise for me to anticipate those negotiations.

Mr. Booth: Can the Minister give the House an indication when a final decision will be taken by the Council of Ministers on which areas are to benefit from the fund, as and when its benefits become available? Will he confirm that the Government do not accept the present criteria in the proposals in so far as they would exclude one important development area in this country, the Furness development area? Will he assure us that representations are being made to the Council to alter those criteria in a way which will qualify all United Kingdom development areas for such benefits under the fund?

Mr. Grant: We are working to ensure that Furness, the hon. Gentleman's area, is covered by the fund. The first thing to do is to set up the fund, and I hope that the negotiations on 30th January will be successful. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will make a statement on how they progress in due course.

Light Aircraft Accidents

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and industry what discussions he has had with the Civil Aviation Authority and with representatives of flying clubs about reducing the accident rate for light aircraft.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: The safety performance of light aircraft is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority but I know from recent discussions I have had with the chairman that this is one of the subjects that the authority has under continuous review.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, with light aircraft accidents totalling about 200 a year, with attendant fatalities, there is a need for a code of safety and that it would be useful if his Department, the authority and flying clubs got together to work out new regulations and disciplines for light aircraft flying?

Mr. Heseltine: I shall put this point to the chairman of the authority to see whether he feels that publication of a specific code would add to the considerable efforts already made and to the volume of publications which in themselves would constitute such a code. He may feel that it would help to bring them together in one place. My hon. Friend will welcome the fact that there has been an improvement in the safety record. I believe that the authority has contributed to that.

Mr. Tebbit: Does my hon. Friend agree that the maintenance of practice is an important part of preserving competence in light aircraft flying, and that if he continues his ban on Sunday flying the accident rate will become worse? The ban looks ridiculous, compared with the amount of fuel used by motorists in pleasure motoring on Sundays.

Mr. Heseltine: I think that my hon. Friend is making an assumption about the number of accidents, and I do not want to go along with him by agreeing that the one follows from the other. I think he will accept that we have had to take difficult decisions in the light of the energy situation. I do not believe that the argument he advances, unsubstantiated as it is, would warrant our taking any other decision.

Holiday Travel Brochures (Trade Descriptions)

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is satisfied with the operation of the Trade Descriptions Act in relation to holiday travel brochures.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Cranley Onslow): I believe the Act gives consumers substantial protection against false or misleading statements in holiday travel brochures; but my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs is considering whether the time has come to review this and other aspects of its operation.

Mr. McCrindle: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Has his attention been drawn to recent cases against the Thomson holiday company, from which it seems possible for many claims to be made, based on the same misprint or error in a brochure? Does he not feel that, while protection of the consumer is very desirable, the Act should perhaps be reconsidered to see whether an inadvertent error in printing by a tour company should continue to penalise it in the present way?

Mr. Onslow: It is not for me to comment on recent cases which the courts may not have fully disposed of. I am certain that my right hon. and learned Friend will take my hon. Friend's point into account in considering whether a review is desirable.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Will the Minister press upon his right hon. and learned Friend the urgent need for a review of the way in which tour companies advertise their tours? I have personal experience of a scandalously misleading description by Cosmos Tours. It is time the matter was cleared up, because the general public are being defrauded as a result of misleading descriptions.

Mr. Onslow: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be very careful before making that sort of allegation on the Floor of the House. It is not a matter to smile about. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence, he knows what redress is open to him. There is no doubt that holiday brochures are generally much


more accurate as a result of the operation of the Act, and the standards of operators are much higher.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the contracts between the tour operators and their clients are satisfactory and that they fall within the Act?

Mr. Onslow: I think that if there is evidence of breach redress is open to anyone who suffers as a result.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Minister recall that the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs told me last week that there had been discussions in the past about the protection of the public in the event of tour operators going bankrupt? Will he tell the House, in view of this morning's warnings from the CBI about the imminent danger of an increased number of bankruptcies—a point of view which was dismissed as alarmist when I put it forward last week—whether he is satisfied that the public will be fully protected in the event of bankruptcies arising in the holiday travel sector? If not, in the extreme circumstances of 1974 what urgent extra action do the Government envisage?

Mr. Onslow: I do not believe that that question follows from the Question on the Order Paper or that the circumstances are as extreme as the hon. Gentleman seeks to suggest. However, I am certain that in the present difficulties the tour operators will do everything they can to maintain their holiday programmes.

Mr. Williams: The question I am asking is whether the public are adequately protected. It is not enough for the Minister to say complacently that the tour operators will do what they can. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the measures they envisage taking will give adequate protection? If not, what will the Government do?

Mr. Onslow: If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to support what he says, apart from alarmist scaremongering of that kind, it will receive serious attention.

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall attempt to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

EEC Countries

Mr. Moate: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the latest available figure for the United Kingdom balance of trade deficit with the rest of the EEC in 1973.

Mrs. Doris Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the percentage increase for British exports to the EEC for 1973; and what was the comparable percentage increase for EEC imports into Great Britain.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Walker): The deficit for 1973 was £1,120 million, and the percentage increases for exports and imports were 37 per cent. and 48 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Moate: Does my right hon. Friend recall that it was for the privilege of securing this enormous trade deficit of £1,120 million that the Government were prepared to accept the obligations of Community membership and the burden of the common agricultural policy? As a bargain, it can hardly be described as a good one. Does not my right hon. Friend consider that the time has come for a substantial renegotiation of the terms of entry?

Mr. Walker: Compared with the rest of our exports which went up 26 per cent. last year, our exports to the Community went up 37 per cent. There are also very substantial invisible earnings from which we have benefited as a result of our entry into Europe.

Mrs. Fisher: Is the right hon. Gentleman really satisfied with these figures? Do they not prove that we are losing the battle of exports across the Channel? Will he now produce for the benefit of the House a White Paper showing the trading figures for and against our first year's membership of the EEC?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Lady, coming from Birmingham, should appreciate that virtually the whole of the deficit is accountable by the increase in our imports of fuel, machinery and industrial materials, which have been of benefit to industrial areas like hers which have also benefited from the 37 per cent. increase in our exports.

Mr. Fell: Can my right hon. Friend recall the figures for our trade with EFTA in the last year?

Mr. Walker: Not without notice.

Mr. Dell: Do the Government attribute this deficit and the enormous deficit with the countries with which we were formerly members of the European Free Trade Area to a basic uncompetitiveness of the British economy as compared with Europe, or to the Government's economic policies?

Mr. Walker: The fact that we have increased our exports to such a degree and the fact that during a period when there was a substantial growth in manufacturing industry in this country we have imported more machinery, fuel and industrial materials than before have been the reason for this size of deficit in the last year.

Mr. Grylls: Although this supplementary question is not directly connected with the EEC, will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that we all congratulate him on his deal with Iran and say whether he thinks that there is a great future for our exports to the Middle East?

Mr. Walker: In recent months the proportion of our exports to the Common Market has been increasing. I still believe that there is a substantial potentiality for growth in this export market.

Mr. Greville Janner: When did the Government first recognise that our trade deficit, of which the EEC portion forms only part, was getting serious?

Mr. Walker: At the beginning of the year we predicted that even on the then knowledge of commodity prices there would be a deficit if we were going to get a period of growth. Alas, the price of world commodities substantially increased that deficit.

Mr. Rost: Has my right hon. Friend calculated to what extent our trade deficit with Europe is attributable to Communist subversion which is affecting British industry, slowing down exports and sucking in more imports?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir.

Mr. Carter: In view of the devastating effects of the three-day working week and of the Government's economic policies on the output of British industry, will the right hon. Gentleman give serious consderation to the restriction of imports of foreign motor cars into this country?

Mr. Walker: I can imagine nothing which would do more harm to British Leyland than the creation of conditions world-wide whereby countries imposed restrictions on the import of cars. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the British motor industry has a very substantial interest in exporting cars throughout the world.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend take every step to encourage European investment in the regions of this country, which would make a very substantial net improvement to our balance of payments position?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. Already a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry have held conferences with business men and Governments on the Continent for this purpose.

Mr. Benn: In this connection, will the right hon. Gentleman convey to Sir Christopher Soames—whose salary, as a civil servant, we pay and who represents nobody—the great resentment created in this country by his political statements about the trading policy of this Government or of any British Government, particularly in view of the very great damage to our interests which has taken place in trading in the first year of our membership?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir.

Companies (Political Contributions)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation to ensure that companies which have charge of clients' money, such as banks and insurance companies, may not make political contributions.

Mr. Onslow: No, Sir.

Mr. Jenkins: Will the hon. Gentleman think about this again? Is it not the case as regards trade unions that it is


necessary to set up a separate political fund in order to make political contributions? If this is all right for trade unions, is it not equally proper for contributors to the Conservative Party to have the same treatment as contributors to the Labour Party? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those of us on this side of the House who have any dealings with banks and insurance companies are inadvertently contributors to the Conservative Party? Is he very happy about a situation in which part of his own election expenses will be inadvertently compulsorily contributed by Members on this side of the House?

Mr. Onslow: In so far as that is true at all, it is true that the previous Government, which I understand the hon. Gentleman supported when they legislated in 1967, did not think it right to take action in this field. I recognise that the Labour Party has massive commitments to the nationalisation of banks and insurance companies. I think it is disgraceful that they should seek to deny to these companies the means of defending themselves.

Mr. Redmond: Can my hon. Friend say what contributions have been made during and between General Elections by the National Union of Mineworkers and ESLEF? If the banks and insurance companies were nationalised, where would we o nthis side of the House put our money?

Mr. Onslow: I am sure that the whole House would very much like to know the answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question. Unfortunately, I cannot give the answer. As to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I can assure him that this dilemma is unlikely to face him.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Does not my hon. Friend think it unfortunate that the Labour Party is prepared to accept money for financing from these very unions some of whose officials, like Mr. McGahey, are determined to destroy the country?

Mr. Onslow: The party opposite had better answer for itself.

Confectionery (United States Quota)

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will seek to make representations to

the United States Government concerning the consequences for the United Kingdom of the candy quota introduced by the United States Sugar Act of 1971 and due to be renewed in 1974.

Mr. Onslow: Her Majesty's Government have made representations to the United States administration about the confectionery quota four times since 1971. With our accession to the EEC the Commission has taken up the matter and is seeking a satisfactory solution through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Mr. Fortescue: Does my hon. Friend agree that this quota is contrary to the spirit and the letter of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and will he accept that the United States administration would welcome further representations from foreign Governments with a view to having it abolished?

Mr. Onslow: It is indeed our view that the quota is contrary to Article XI of the GATT and it is a breach of the United States obligations to the United Kingdom following the Kennedy Round of negotiations. As to the question of representations, it is best that they should be made on behalf of the Community as a whole.

Mr. Milne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government are in a sticky enough mess already without dealing with the candy quota in the way suggested?

Mr. Onslow: No, Sir.

Unfair Trade Practice Referrals

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many unfair trade practices have been referred to the Director General of Fair Trading; and what practices these have concerned.

Mr. Onslow: I understand that the director general has in mind certain practices for possible reference to the Consumer Protection Advisory Committee. This is a matter for him.

Mr. Janner: That is precisely the same unsatisfactory answer as came from the Government on the last occasion when this matter was raised. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Act could do a lot of good and that there has been far too much procrastination? When are we to have some facts and some action?

Mr. Onslow: Some time ago the hon. and learned Gentleman was told that, if he had any representations which he wished to make to the director general, there was no reason why he should not do so direct. I do not know whether he has done so. The director general has been in office for only the last three months, and I hope the House will think that the Act should be left to take its course.

Mr. Dykes: Will my hon. Friend ask the director general to look into the deplorable practice whereby, for example, car parks and garages often exonerate themselves by small print on the back of the ticket or document from any payment of compensation to people whose vehicles are damaged in their installations? This is a most unwelcome practice.

Mr. Onslow: I am sure that the director general will take note of what my hon. Friend says. I understand that the director general has some proposals for references to the Consumer Protection Advisory Committee under active consideration.

Mr. Alan Williams: Will the Minister confirm, as his ministerial colleague told us in the past, that the weights and measures inspectors are the essential local agents of the director general? As the Price Commission is not even acknowledging queries from the Weights and Measures Inspectorate about its secretly approved price increases, how are weights and measures inspectors to protect the public? Does the hon. Gentleman remember the references to "open government"? If he does—without a blush—will he now issue an instruction to the Price Commission that in future it shall announce publicly all price increases which it approves so that the director general, the Weights and Measures Inspectorate and the public may know whether they are being cheated?

Mr. Onslow: I perfectly well recall "open government", but I am aware also of the rules of order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask that question. perhaps he will put it down.

Yoghourt

Miss Fookes: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will use his powers to lay down stan-

dardised prescribed quantities for the sale of yoghourt.

Mr. Onslow: There is undoubtedly scope for reducing the variety of existing practices within the trade, and I intend to invite trade and consumer interests to suggest possible means of rationalisation.

Miss Fookes: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but will he speed matters up a bit? Is he aware that the Weights and Measures Inspectorate recently pointed out that control of prices would be very much easier if far more goods were packed in standardised packs, such as I have been advocating for two years and more?

Mr. Onslow: On my hon. Friend's specific Question about yoghourt, I have to tell her that marked variations in consistency which have been developing recently have probably contributed to the diversity of markings. I hope she will feel that this is a matter on which consumers and the trade should be left to form their opinions, and there is no need to rush matters.

Director General of Fair Trading (Investigations)

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will ask the Director General of Fair Trading to publish a quarterly analysis of his investigations and their results.

Mr. Onslow: The director general tells me that he will be publicising his activities widely. In addition, he has a duty to publish an annual report. I see no need for the quarterly analysis suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Oppenheim: Will not my hon. Friend accept that, as the Parliamentary Commissioner publishes such a report quarterly, a quarterly report from the director general could contain valuable advice and information? Is he aware, for example, that after the servicing of domestic appliances consumers are often asked to sign a paper saying that the work has been satisfactorily carried out, although they have not had the time or do not have the expertise to ascertain whether that is so? Will my hon. Friend refer this matter specifically to the director general?

Mr. Onslow: I am sure that the director general will take appropriate note of my hon. Friend's observation. As to the way he goes about his business, I can tell the House that the director general intends shortly to make available to hon. Members a pamphlet describing his office and setting out the way in which he goes about his work. Publicity is essential to the success of his operations. If my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member wishes to keep abreast of the facts, I am sure that he will gladly add their names to his mailing list for Press releases.

Steel Strategy

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what changes he proposes in his long-term steel strategy in the light of the latest economic outlook.

Mr. Peter Walker: The British Steel Corporation's long-term development strategy is essentially flexible and allows for the latest economic forecasts to be taken into account as planning proceeds. I do not foresee changes in the main features of the strategy as published in the White Paper, Cmnd. 5226.

Mr. Jones: In view of the developing world energy crisis, are the Government justified in putting all their eggs into the one jumbo-size steel plant basket, especially as that may well cost not £3,000 million but £5,000 million? Will they not ask that the strategy be altered to the extent that there would be one medium-size 2½-million ton plant, and could that not be at Shotton, in that way helping to save some of the 6,000 jobs there which will otherwise go?

Mr. Walker: As regards Shotton, I understand that BSC and trade union representatives met on Friday, when the trade unions put forward counterproposals to the closure of steel making, and I am sure that the corporation will consider those proposals quickly and impartially. It is the corporation's responsiblity, and I cannot anticipate the outcome of discussions which are taking place between the men and management at Shotton.

Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: In view of the importance of coal to the steel industry, are steps being taken to ensure that the secret ballot

which is about to take place remains secret and that miners are not subjected to intimidation?

Mr. Walker: The National Union of Mineworkers has always been proud of the trouble it has taken to see that these ballots are conducted on a truly democratic basis, and I am sure that both sides of the House will expect it to proceed in the same way on this occasion.

Mr. Ashley: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to visit the Victoria Theatre in Stoke-on-Trent, where he would see a vivid, exciting and convincing portrayal of the reasons for retaining Shelton steelworks? Does he realise that it would be an act of great folly to close this steelworks, which has such a distinguished history of steel production, and could still have a distinguished future if the British Steel Corporation were prepared to invest a few million pounds?

Mr. Walker: I have always been worried about going to the theatre since Abraham Lincoln went to one on a certain occasion.

Sir R. Cary: If Shotton is to be refurbished, would it not be only fair that Irlam should receive the same treatment?

Mr. Walker: In all these matters the important consideration is that the British steel industry, which is of such interest to British steel workers, shall have a future as compared with other steel industries throughout the world. This is why the steel unions applauded the massive injection of new capital which the present Government agreed to put into the industry. I recognise that there are serious problems for a number of steel plants, and on every one of these the British Steel Corporation has agreed to enter into most detailed discussions with those concerned. In my view, the corporation is pursuing a responsible and correct policy.

Mr. Lambie: In the light of the past history of the rundown of coal mining, why will not the Government agree to review the long-term strategic plans of the British Steel Corporation? As an interim step, will they stop all immediate closures, especially those involving the 6,500 redundancies which are to take place in the Scottish steel industry?

Mr. Walker: I can well understand the hon. Gentleman being sensitive about the rundown of the coal industry, which this Government have reversed. We are not running down the steel industry. We have agreed to a massive investment in the steel industry in order substantially to increase production, which the previous Government did not agree to.

Mr. Benn: As the real damage to the steel industry now arises from the policy of confrontation which the Government have adopted towards the mining industry, may I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to an article which appeared in the first edition of The Times today calling for a 35 per cent. offer to the miners, and may I ask him also to inquire why the second edition of that newspaper excluded that reference?

Mr. Walker: I am not responsible for The Times. If the right hon. Gentleman is seriously worried about the future of the steel industry, he should urge the miners to vote against strike action.

Northern Region

Mr. Leadbitter: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the amounts by which he plans to reduce expenditure in the Northern Region for 1974–75.

Mr. Peter Walker: Expenditure by my Department in the assisted areas, of which the Northern Region forms part, is expected to increase in 1974–5. The amount depends upon what eligible projects become available under the 1972 Industry Act.

Mr. Leadbitter: Will the Secretary of State now relieve the Northern Region of the great uncertainty which exists over the Government's policy on the regional employment premium? It represents a considerable element in an industrialist's programme of future investment, and a firmer decision than has hitherto been given by the Government would be welcome at this juncture.

Mr. Walker: I have no decision to announce today but, knowing the hon. Member's interest in developments in the Northern Region, I am sure he was pleased to hear the major announcement at lunch time today of considerably increased investment there by ICI.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the decision of the Government to maintain active regional policies at a time of great financial economic stringency overall is evidence of their determination to unite the nation and to reduce the disparities which exist between the various regions?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. I think that perhaps both sides of the House would now agree how outstandingly successful the 1972 Industry Act has been.

Mr. Dormand: Has the Secretary of State seen the recent independent economic report and national survey which showed that the Northern Region has suffered more from inflation than any other part of the country? Will he take due note of that and take the necessary action when public expenditure cuts are formulated?

Mr. Walker: I hope that the hon. Member will in his turn do all he can to support the Government's counter-inflation policy.

Glass Containers

Sir John Hall: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations have been made to him about the shortage of glass containers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Anthony Grant: I have received a number of representations about the shortage of glass containers. The glass industry is doing everything possible to alleviate the situation and, in particular, to meet the needs of the dairy trade and the food, drinks and pharmaceutical sectors.

Sir John Hall: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the recycling of waste material is of great importance to a country that is short of both basic materials and energy? Is he not aware that we can no longer afford the luxury of non-returnable glass containers? Will he enter into discussion with the trade to see how the problem can be resolved?

Mr. Grant: I agree on the first point entirely. The glass industry is embarked on a programme aimed at significantly increasing use of waste glass in the manufacture of glass containers and finding other sources of supply. Non-returnable containers are a matter which falls within the responsibilities of my right hon.


Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I know that he will take note of what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Molloy: One of the largest glass container factories, Rockware Glass in my constituency, was driven out of existence by threats by Slater Walker of take-over bids. As a result it was compelled to close the factory and sell the land to ward off the predatory intentions of Slater Walker. A thousand men were thrown out of work at a time when the company was bulging with orders for home and export markets. It cannot carry them out because it had to close the factory. Will the Minister now consult the Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs to decide what legislation should be introduced to stop these predatory activities, which seriously damage British industry, far in excess of the damage attributed to alleged Communist activity?

Mr. Grant: As far as I could hear the hon. Member's speech I can only say that everything he said has been specifically denied by the chairman of the company.

Unsolicited Goods and Services Act

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is satisfied with the working of the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971.

Mr. Onslow: The Act appears to be working as intended, but I am watching its operation closely in the light of recent developments.

Mr. Goodhart: As one of the objectives of the Act was the elimination of bogus business directories and as the promoters of those bogus directories have been showing remarkable ingenuity recently, would not my hon. Friend agree that this is yet another matter which should be referred to the Director General of Fair Trading?

Mr. Onslow: This is not a consumer problem in the terms of the Fair Trading Act and it falls outside the scope of the director general's activities. However, if in his references to ingenuity my hon. Friend is referring to those gentlemen who are sending invoices here from the Irish Republic, for examule, I can tell him that under the terms of the Universal Postal Convention an obligation is im-

posed on other countries in these matters and the Post Office has drawn the attention of overseas postal administrations to the implications of the 1971 Act.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Are not these trade directory firms still operating almost as actively as they were before the passing of the Act? Does not their ingenuity—if that is not too polite a word to use—extend to using in small print the words "this is not an assertion for payment" when quite clearly it is a demand for payment aimed solely at getting money which is not due to them? Is not a closer look at the Act and its working overdue?

Mr. Onslow: I am closely watching the operation of the Act. There have been convictions under it and I am sure that the hon. Member, as one of its sponsors, welcomes that fact. The Act was designed not to stop people being asked to buy entries in directories but to give people some protection when sent what can best be described as bogus invoices. However, in this activity as elsewhere, there is a certain duty on people to read the small print.

Mr. Rost: Where there have been prosecutions of bogus trade directory companies, is it not a fact that they have been so petty and insignificant as to be no disincentive? Is it not also a fact that these cases have not been publicised enough to warn the public against this dishonest trading practice?

Mr. Onslow: I do not think I can agree with my hon. Friend's assessment.

Mr. Rost: It is true.

Iran

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his discussions on trade with representatives of the Government of Iran.

Mr. Peter Walker: Negotiations were satisfactorily concluded during the course of my discussions at St. Moritz last Friday. As a result Britain will receive an additional 5 million tons of crude oil from Iran during 1974 and the early part of 1975 and will supply £110 million worth of British goods during the same period. The oil will be purchased by BP acting as agents for Her Majesty's Government. Parliamentary authority for


the expenditure will be sought in the usual way. We reviewed the progress being made on the £250 million of industrial joint-venture projects in Iran, which were negotiated at the Iran/United Kingdom Investment Conference last November. We also agreed to examine at an early date the potentialities for Iranian investment in the United Kingdom and agreed that there were many spheres in which substantial investments from Iran into United Kingdom industry and technology could be of mutual benefit to both countries. This agreement marks a further important stage in the valuable and increasing inter-relationship between the economies of Iran and Britain.

Mr. Dalyell: What proportion of the £110 million will be represented by arms sales, and what discussion took place on the short-term use of Iranian finance for developing countries?

Mr. Walker: The answer to the first question is "None". On the second question, Iran is taking an increasing interest in the problems of the countries of the Third World and recently the Iranian Government have had negotiations with India to assist in the development of that country's economy. In addition, they are taking a far greater interest in the economies of a number of African countries where I believe that economic assistance and aid will be of great value.

Mr. Powell: In negotiating these particular purchases and sales with the Shahanshah of Iran, are the Government acting as principal or agent?

Mr. Walker: In negotiating the purchase of oil we were acting as principal. As for negotiating individual commodities, the individual companies carried out their own negotiations and obtained their own contracts and these are therefore individual contracts between the British companies and the companies and public agencies in Iran.

Mr. Kaufman: Since the right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor were ready to hurry to St. Moritz at the flick of the Shah of Iran's finger, will they now at least meet Mr. Joe Gormley, perhaps in a Butlin's holiday camp, and discuss with him the miners' pay claim, since coal costs one-third the price of oil for heat generation?

Mr. Walker: I only hope that if the Labour Party ever become the Government they will not take the same nauseating patronising attitude towards Iran as the hon. Member adopts.

Mr. Skeet: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the deal which he has negotiated. I assume that BP will be the agent for the Government, but is not that acting in favour of one company when there are other marketing organisations in the United Kingdom? Will my right hon. Friend indicate whether petroleum products and not merely crude oil are covered by the agreement? Will he indicate also, since the price is about seven dollars a barrel, whether there is any way of ensuring that the consumer benefits?

Mr. Walker: On the first point, with the Government having such a substantial equity interest in BP it is right for that company to act in this case. On the second question, the oil is crude oil of various qualities, both light and heavy. On the last question, some of the companies—for example, those which will be producing petrochemicals and therefore needing oil—will be guaranteed to receive this oil at the price obtained in these negotiations.

Mr. Lawson: Has the Secretary of State noticed that one of the European Commissioners and a former Member of this House has been warning this and other West European countries not to engage in these separate deals because of the great dangers they have for divisions within Europe? What is the approach of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to this question?

Mr. Walker: Our approach is that it would be a mistake for the United Kingdom or any other Government to enter into deals which would inflate the price of oil world-wide. To indulge in a scramble for oil would be a mistake. However, as a result of these negotiations the oil will be delivered at stable prices currently provided by the consortium and it in no way has the effect of inflating the world's oil prices.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, in principle, it must be bad policy to keep up the price of oil by these individual barter deals? Surely we should try to keep in touch


with the Americans and use the large oil companies to protect a market which we are now encouraging to be held at ransom. Surely every trade in the world agrees that this is precisely what the Labour Government did when they started bulk purchase schemes in the 1950s, thereby keeping up world prices.

Mr. Walker: I remind my right hon. Friend that spot prices for oil have recently reached 17, 18 and 20 dollars a barrel. In the light of such prices, obtaining a stable price for one year of seven dollars a barrel is surely a bargain.

Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on both sides of the House there will be a general welcome for sensible commercial arrangements which secure oil for this country? Is he further aware, however, that the public do not understand why, if that makes sense to the national interest, the Government should be losing £400 million a week as a result of their present attitude in not paying the miners the income they richly deserve, and this at the very time when the nation needs to acquire more miners if the coal is to be dug in the quantity required?

Mr. Walker: It is because we take the opposite view to the one which the right hon. Gentleman ascribes to us that we are offering the miners more than the Labour Government offered in their six years of office.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Lamont.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Is my right hon. Friend aware—

Hon. Members: This is out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I called the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Norman Lamont).

Mr. Lamont: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while the deal announced will no doubt have great advantages for the United Kingdom, many people, whether for or against the EEC, will share the preference of Sir Christopher Soames for

a multilateral rather than a bilateral approach to the problem of the oil deficit? Is it not extremely difficult to separate the financing of oil deficits from the price of oil? Will my right hon. Friend therefore give an assurance that the Government will treat the important question of recycling the proceeds of the Arab oil surpluses as a matter of urgency, above all on an international basis?

Mr. Walker: There is every evidence that the present Government have done everything possible to encourage a unified approach throughout Europe to these problems and have also supported Dr. Kissinger's initiatives. There is nothing at all in this transaction with Iran which in any way damages those initiatives.

Commodity Prices

Mr. Skeet: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on the trend in commodity prices.

Mr. Peter Walker: Between December 1972 and December 1973 the Economist World Commodity Price Index rose from 170·2 to 269; in the previous nine years the index rose by 70·2. In the last year alone it has risen by 98·8. The latest announced increases in oil prices will have a further impact in the first months of 1974.

Mr. Skeet: Can my right hon. Friend indicate what part of the annual deficit is now attributable to world commodity price increases? Has not the whole position been exacerbated by cartels formed by producers getting together, as in oil and phosphates, and making difficulties for industrialised countries?

Mr. Walker: In last year's adverse terms of trade, the difference between the increases in export prices and in import prices accounted for about 80 per cent. of the increase in the deficit. Unity of action by commodity producers is certainly very important in its effect upon present and future prices.

Sir John Hall: Can my right hon. Friend state what has been the rise in world food prices over the same period?

Mr. Walker: Not without notice.

Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend confirm yet again that the deficit would


have been less than half of what it was in 1973 but for the severe rise in marginal food commodity prices, and that the non-oil deficit this year in normal circumstances would have been expected by all economic commentators to be substantially less but for the actions of certain self-centred trade union leaders?

Mr. Walker: There was an adverse effect by all these influences on our balance of trade last year. The figures in my original answer showed that commodity prices rose far more last year than in the previous nine years put together. They are indicative of the effects.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: As the rise in commodity prices has been fairly constant in the last 12 months, and this was well known to the right hon. Gentleman, why was he so euphoric about our balance of trade prospects up to last October?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. There has been a substantial rise in world commodity prices in the last 12 months.

Mr. Morgan: Not in the last 12 months.

Mr. Walker: In the last three months there has been a considerable increase in oil prices.

Export Orders

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how export orders have been affected by three-day working in industry.

Mr. Peter Walker: The Department has no quantitive measure as yet of the effect of three-day working on export orders, but there is no doubt that there will be a deteriorating position so long as the industrial action in the mines continues to create the necessity for a three-day week.

Mr. Duffy: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if exports are affected at this time above all when they should be rising steeply, our economic future is even grimmer than many of us thought?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. That is why I hope that the Opposition will urge the miners not to take strike action.

Mr. Wilkinson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the decision to exercise flexibility with respect to wool textile firms which have been working seven days a week, to give them about 60 per cent. power. If the miners give him a chance, will he extend this flexibility to the cotton and synthetics sections of the textile industry which have not been able to enjoy the same privileges as the wool textile industry but which make a significant contribution to the balance of payments?

Mr. Walker: This matter is under constant consideration and if the opportunity arises it will be taken.

Mr. Palmer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people hold the view that, had the resources of the electricity supply industry been properly organised, up till now there would have been no need at all for the three-day working week? Will he consider issuing a White Paper for the benefit of the House, setting out who gave the advice on this question and at which dates the advice was given?

Mr. Walker: This is a matter for my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, but on the figures there is no doubt that it was right and responsible for the Government to take the action we did.

Mr. Biffen: Does my right hon. Friend have evidence which confirms or validates the claim of a number of commentators that a great many companies in Britain are now in a critical and deteriorating cash position on account of the protracted three-day working week? If that is so, what hopes is my right hon. Friend holding out for some kind of financial rescue operation for these companies?

Mr. Walker: There is not yet a great deal of such evidence available, but it is obvious that if the situation continues it will deteriorate at an accelerating rate. In such circumstances, there are certain obvious things which can be done—for example, through the banks or under the Industry Act. If, however, the nation is starved of energy, firms will be going bankrupt and many jobs will be lost.

Mr. Benn: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm the figure of £100 million a week lost in exports as a result of the


three-day working week which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) says, was clearly not necessary at the time it was imposed? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House how it is that he, whose ministerial responsibilities are to safeguard industry, will be presiding over circumstances in which there will be, as he himself admits, many bankruptcies, many of them among exporting firms? Will he look again, as the first edition of The Times did today, at the case for giving the miners a much better offer and allowing free negotiations to take place?

Mr. Walker: It is because we wish to safeguard industry that, unlike the Opposition, we introduced the Coal Industry Act, we are putting £1,100 million into the coal industry and, under phase 3 we are offering the miners more in one year than the Labour Government offered in six years.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Did the Government indicate whether they would have made a statement on the Iranian oil deal rather than take up a great deal of time during Question Time? Many Questions, some with important local connotations, were not reached. Surely it would have been far better if the Government had made a statement on the Iranian oil deal so that we could have had proper questioning rather than—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me; it is for the Minister.

Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It was not a point of order.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order. As the person who tabled the Question, may I point out that it was suggested that perhaps the Minister would answer it at the end of Question Time. The Question referred to the Secretary of State's earlier talks at Teheran. It was purely fortuitous that it should have occurred at a time of more recent talks in Switzerland. In these circumstances, surely this should have been the subject of a Government statement.

Mr. Peter Walker: I was informed by the hon. Gentleman approximately three minutes before his Question was reached that he was willing to take a certain course, by which time a number of my hon. Friends were waiting to ask supplementary questions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Plainly this is not a question for me.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's Sitting, Mr. Speaker shall put any Question necessary to dispose of Proceedings on the Motion relating to Cuts in Expenditure on Education not later than Seven o'clock.—[Mr. Prior.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[10TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.

EDUCATION (EXPENDITURE)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Before calling the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), I should point out that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends.

3.32 p.m.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the cuts in the education service which will result from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement on 17th December last.
The Opposition intend to debate not the theory but the practice of Government cuts. I do not propose to contest with the Under-Secretary of State whether the cuts are worse than those made in 1926 and 1931, nor do I propose to argue about the interesting concept of cuts in education which provide special savings in the fuel supply. I want to talk about reality—what happens to real children in real schools in the real world.
However, before describing the effects of the cuts, I wish to say a few words about what, if past behaviour is to be our guide, will be the burden of the Government's defence. In almost every previous education debate in this Parliament the Government have subjected us to defence by bogus comparison. I put aside the intellectual unacceptability of comparing the problems of a Government who inherited a record balance of payments deficit with a Government who inherited a record balance of payments surplus and then dissipated it. I refer simply to the intellectually disreputable practice of comparing what the Labour Party achieved in the mid-1960s with what the Government promise but seem increasingly unlikely to deliver in the early 1980s.
The obvious example of that practice is central to the cuts which we are de-

bating.For 14 months the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State has been projected as the author of a national nursery programme. In fact, the major part of that national nursery programme has seen one development since 6th December 1972, when it was announced—and that is its postponement until July 1974.
Equally important in this area for which the Secretary of State claims so much is the effects which the cuts we are debating will have on her general pre-school policy and aspects of that policy which fall outside the major development she prophesies will eventually begin in July next year. Rising fives in primary schools, the use of empty primary school classrooms for nursery classes and the encouragement of the creation of playgroups are all supplementary parts of the right hon. Lady's nursery programme and urged on local education authorities in her White Paper on nursery education.
Yet in all those areas of pre-school education there is a desperate risk that they will be affected deeply and perhaps permanently by the revenue cuts we are debating. Indeed, some local education authorities have already chosen to make savings in exactly these areas. What is more, the best, most enthusiastic and most progressive local education authorities which have had the temerity to admit under fives
more freely than was recommended in the White Paper
were told by the Under-Secretary of State 10 days ago that they should cut the number of under fives they are admitting to their schools.
I hope that, looking at the reality of the Secretary of State's achievement in nursery education, we shall today hear a little less of what she plans to do and a good deal more about what she has done, not least because her plans so often go awry. The Chairman of the University Grants Committee told the universities last week that
…we have to be prepared for the possibility that the economic situation may require further economies in subsequent years.
I hope that the Secretary of State's nursery plans survive the next Budget, but we must all be sceptical about that. No doubt the right hon. Lady will assure


us that they are safe, but on 13th November last year I was told, in rather tart terms, that the building embargo would end completely on 1st January 1974. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not allow that to happen for most of the building programme. We know very well that when he nerves himself for the Budget the nursery programme even in its present truncated form may not survive.
But, having hoped that we shall hear a little less about what might happen and a good deal more about what has been done, I turn to the subject of the cuts themselves. By any standards, they are massive—£119 million from capital and £63 million from revenue. Many of the cuts, on both accounts, fall on higher education.
I have always made plain my belief that in times of financial stringency higher education should stand further back in the resources queue than schools, and I reiterate that belief. But the Secretary of State proposes a massive reduction in higher education spending and deeply damaging cuts in schools. We now understand that the estimates for student admission—the targets for 1976–77—may be cut by between 40,000 and 50,000. I hope that the Secretary of State will try to justify that reduction. Indeed, I hope she will do more. I hope that she will say clearly whether the Government have abandoned the Robbins principle that
courses of higher education should be available for all those who are qualified by ability and attaintment to pursue them and who wish to do so".
I should like to say a few words about the phrase "who wish to do so". I know that the number of applications to universities and colleges fell by 6,500 last year. The level and pattern of student grants is now becoming a severe and genuine deterrent to potential working-class students. In fact, the Government are depressing the demand for university places. It would be inexcusable if today we were told that university places were being cut because demand was falling when, in fact, demand was falling because the Government were depressing it. That is all I wish to say about higher education, for I hope that we shall debate the matter in greater detail on some future occasion.
I want to deal chiefly in this debate with schools, pre-school education and the problems which local education authorities are facing. I deal first with their problems on revenue account. These problems did not begin on 17th December. Local authorities, in the same way as the rest of us, face unremitting and unaparelleled inflation. Indeed, their association has estimated that a 20 per cent. increase in capitation and book allowances would be necessary to keep provision simply up to last year's level. Local authorities—and, indeed, all local government bodies—are facing problems consequent upon the Government's three-stage reduction in the rate support grant. Education committees have been provided with £45 million less than they believe they need simply to sustain services to carry out approved policies. The statement of 17th December on savings came on top of all that.
Some savings required from 17th December are, I understand, believed by the Government to be possible—I quote the Under-Secretary of State's words—
without damage to the standards of the service ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 16th January 1974; Vol. 867, c. 609.]
I suppose that depends whether one's standards are the standards of the best local education authorities or the standards of the Secretary of State.
I hope that when the right hon. Lady hears some of the cuts which have been reported to us, she will explain how they can be accomplished without standards being diminished. But most of the revenue services which are to be cut—and this applies to most of the savings to be made—come from what the Department of Education and Science calls "procurables", or part of non-teaching costs. Some of these non-teaching costs are specifically recommended for exemption from savings. I refer to rent and rates, food in school meals, discretionary grants and direct grant school fees. I ask no questions about the exceptions—except one. Why are the direct grant schools to get more when all other schools are to get less? I do not draw any conclusions from that, but I shall look forward to the right hon. Lady's explanation.
None of the exceptions is mandatory, and the advice is, to say the least, confusing. In column 610 of HANSARD on 16th January the Under-Secretary said


that books were not exempted, whereas in the next column he said that he hoped they would not be cut. I am sure he would agree that that is not the clearest of advice to local authorities. While that is the case, it does not matter very much that the distinction is blurred, because unfortunately the distinction between the exempted categories and savings and the non-exempted categories is bound to be meaningless. Inflation, the cut in the rate support grant, and the 17th December budget make it impossible to confine the education cuts to the rather simple areas specified by the Department.
Let me give an example from one of my favourite local education authorities—"favourite" not in terms of what it does but of what it demonstrates. I refer to Essex County Council. Tomorrow the Essex County Council Finance Committee will consider cuts in the county's education budget. The right hon. Lady must tell the House how those cuts will fit into the interesting concept enshrined in the Government's amendment embraced by the words "essential educational priorities".
The cuts contemplated by Essex County Council are as follows. They will save £500,000 on capital account because of a postponed nursery programme. They intend to save £126,000 on revenue from postponement of developments in the much-vaunted nursery programme—money which would have been expended in respect of developments in advance of capital programmes. I hope that the right hon. Lady will say whether she approves of that cut. Essex County Council will make some cuts in approved areas. For example, the county council will reduce cleaning costs and also will cut repairs and maintenance by 8½ per cent. in schools and by 15 per cent. in technical colleges. It will reduce provision of furniture and equipment in technical colleges by 15 per cent.
That is only a beginning of what the Essex County Council intends to do. It intends to slow down special school improvement plans. We were promised that this would not happen. The county council will slow down teacher recruitment substantially. That authority intended next year to improve the basic—not the average—staff-pupil ratio in primary

schools from 1: 36 to 1: 34. The improvement is now to be limited to a basic 1: 35. The county council intend next year to recruit 50 teachers to Southend Secondary School. It now intends to recruit only 25 more teachers. It intended next year to employ 40 additional technical college teachers. That plan is now abandoned. All this is happening in a county which is at the bottom of the county league table of teacher provision in primary schools and near to the bottom of the table in teacher provision in secondary schools.
The right hon. Lady and also the Minister of State, who represents part of that county, have given advice and have issued constant Press statements saying that the level of teacher recruitment will not be affected by cuts. Clearly Essex needs advice and guidance from the Department. It needs to be told what is the reduction in costs and the relationship to the teaching profession. Does all the trumpeting about teach recruitment not being affected simply mean that nobody will be sacked, or that extra teachers can be recruited? Is there a tacit moratorium on the size of the teaching force? Is this one of the ways in which the right hon. Lady plans to meet the situation?
Essex is not the only county that is behaving in this way. I am advised that Lincolnshire intended to recruit 163 additional teachers next September. Now it will recruit only 25. I am also advised that every county and borough has recently been supplied with new figures on the teaching quota and each will have to decide whether it should recruit the extra teachers. Many authorities are not recruiting them because of the cuts for which the right hon. Lady is responsible. We should be told in this debate whether that was her intention and, if it was not, what advice about that policy she intends to give to local authorities.
The cuts fall so widely across the education services—far more widely than the Press handouts suggest. It is not possible to confine cuts to the areas which the Government have specified. Let me take a simple example. In Sheffield—an excellent authority—the local education authority, simply to keep expenditure at the anticipated level and to maintain the standstill position without aspiring to any expansion, must cut £600,000 from its budget. That is not possible simply by


reducing transport and minimising repairs, and it is dishonest to pretend otherwise.
I turn to the capital cuts. Twenty per cent of expenditure is to be cut from the building programme. In fact, that may amount to a cut of 60 per cent in building starts anticipated for next year. We are assured that money remains available for special schools, and we applaud that decision. Money also remains available for basic needs, for "roofs over heads", or so at first it seems—at least so the right hon. Lady says. However, two caveats must be entered to that assurance. The first is that 10 days ago we were told that there needed to be a "closer scrutiny of need." This was one of those Delphic and therefore slightly sinister statements, written by civil servants and read by junior Ministers. I hope that the Secretary of State will explain in simple language what the Dhrase means.

Mr. William Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that, following information given by the Department of Education and Science to the London Borough of Ealing on its "roofs over heads" programme, councillors and officials in Ealing now find themselves in total despair because their programme has been completely smashed?

Mr. Hattersley: I know that in some ways Ealing is typical of the nation and in other ways unique. But it is typical in that all over the country local education authorities are in despair because they regret that their services are to be diminished and because they cannot understand how the Minister can pretend that the cuts can be carried out in the way that the right hon. Lady's circular implies.
I turn to my second caveat. We are told in paragraph 6 of Circular 15/73 that there is now to be an aggregate value of approvals. That equally Delphic phrase means that there is to be a total amount of capital available for school building. May we be told what happens when, because of building inflation, that aggregate volume of capital for school building is used up before all the schools that the right hon. Lady has approved have actually got their loan sanction and tenders have been approved? May we be told how big the total is? May we

also be told how she looks back at her building record over the past 18 months? Up to May 1972 we had a period of peculiar building difficulty because of the absurdly low cost limits. Between May and August we had several months of frenzied activity in council architects' departments while officers tried to adjust new estimates to the sudden increase in cost limits. In October we had a total building moratorium. Next year capital for school building will fall to under £300 million.
Speaking of the total building programme for the remainder of 1973–74 and for 1974–75, the Under-Secretary said last week that more than £300 million had been preserved out of a total of £570 million. I suppose that that is right. It is also rather disingenuous. It could be described another way by saying that building had almost been cut in half. That would have been a more accurate and succinct way of putting it.
I am sorry to keep quoting the Under-Secretary of State. The difficulty is that although he and the Minister of State have both made public speeches on the cuts, the right hon. Lady has not done so. The Under-Secretary will discover that one of his departmental responsibilities is "bad news".
The actual figures of cuts and their implications on future years we do not know. I believe that we need desperately to know the detailed figures. The local authorities are in similar desperation. Because of that, I tabled a Question today asking for publication in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the "Framework for Expansion Figures" revised in the light of 17th December and the other difficulties.
Although we do not know the answer to that Question, we know the short-term effect on our schools. We know that the cuts will fall most heavily on the areas of least advantage. Repairs and maintenance cuts specified by the Government will further depress the standards of inner city schools. Replacement of school buildings is most necessary in the decaying central areas. At the moment, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) is fighting a battle for St. Luke's Church of England Primary School, which is in this category. We know also that the halting of the most advanced nursery programmes will be felt


most deeply and desperately by the low-income working mothers. We know, if the Essex example is common, that the technical college cuts will hit most hard the already neglected 16 to 18 year olds. We know, too that if teachers, are not to be recruited it means a delay to ending the largest and least justifiable class sizes. That does not seem to the Opposition to be any way to build one nation.
Someone on the Government benches is bound to ask from where the Opposition propose the money should come. I have never shrunk, nor has my party, from making it clear that we prefer taxes going up to social services expenditure going down. That seems to be morally right. It also seems necessary in terms of creating a permanently prosperous and expanding economy.
In Sunderland, near to and in the Durham coalfield, eight building developments are being delayed. In Wigan, in the Lancashire coalfield, six projects are being postponed. When the Prime Minister next writes to the miners urging them to act in the national interest he should add a paragraph saying,
Your sons and daughters have to be educated in old schools in order that we may preserve the surtax concessions of 1971.
I have to tell the right hon. Lady that that is not the Opposition's vision of the good society. I do not believe that it is the vision of the British people. I believe that the Government will soon discover that.

3.55 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof,
endorses the Government's decision for the reasons given in the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 17th December to reduce during 1974–75 the demands on resources for the education programme, whilst substantially preserving the Government's essential educational priorities ".
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has just made his usual provocative speech. From what he said one would hardly think that he was a member of the Government which postponed—indeed abandoned—the raising of the school leaving age pro-

gramme which this Government have, in fact, carried out. There are a certain number of ironies about the situation because at that time he was propounding a prices and incomes policy from the Treasury Bench.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to say what this Government had done. They have carried out the policy which his Government abandoned of raising the school leaving age. They have carried out all the associated building requirements. They have also carried out a very big primary school improvement programme. Certainly he could not have cut that in his time; it was not there to cut. In addition, the Government have on their own primary school improvement programme got schools started in 1972–73 and this year to the value of £74 million, which is far more than the Labour Government ever did.
The Government have continued with the improvements in teacher supply. In fact, recruitment has exceeded all expectations this year—

Mr. William Hamilton: And the teachers are going on strike.

Mrs. Thatcher: We expected it to be an additional 20,000. We are, in fact, 22,315 up on last year. The total number of qualified teachers now in the service is 424,398, which is nearly 80,000 more than there were in February 1970. The hon. Member for Sparkbrook does not like the true figures—

Mr. William Hamilton: Ask the NUT.

Mrs. Thatcher: Neither the hon. Member for Sparkbrook nor the NUT can refute the increase of numbers in the service.

Mr. William Hamilton: Then why are the teachers going on strike?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) must not persist in making sedentary observations.

Mrs. Thatcher: The NUT and everyone else will admit that my Department has one of the best and most accurate sets of statistics, and the officials in my Department served the Labour Government as well as they have served me—

Mr. William Hamilton: Ask the NUT.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Three sedentary remarks are not better than one—

Mr. William Hamilton: Six might be better.

Mr. Hattersley: I asked the right hon. Lady to avoid bogus comparisons. Since she has failed to do so, will she say whether one of the additional teachers recruited by the Government started his or her course of teacher training under her Government or whether he or she entered a college of education when my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short) was Secretary of State?

Mrs. Thatcher: There will be some married women returners. [Interruption.] I will give the hon. Member for Spark-brook an accurate reply. Some married women returners did not, otherwise all of them will have come from the time of the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short). I wish only that the Opopsition had been as generous in their accolades to my predecessor, Lord Boyle, who was responsible for the increases in numbers in the time of the Labour administration. The Opposition expect to collect compliments, but they are prepared to give none. The point is that money has been found to recruit all these extra teachers—in fact, more than we had expected.
All Ministers dislike having to make cuts in their forecast expenditure, and, naturally, my hon. Friends and I are disappointed that we have had to revise our plans for this year and next; but we recognise, as most people do, that we cannot insulate the education service from the economic situation any more than could the Labour Government.
The economic situation underlying this debate was explained by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 17th December and it is now familiar. However, I should like to stress one short passage from his speech. He said:
It is important to be clear about the purpose of reducing public expenditure in a situation of energy shortage. Shortage of energy and constraint on economic growth are bound to lead to a rise in unemployment. That cannot be avoided. It is inherent in the situation. But the direction of the cuts in public expenditure must be such as to avoid, as far as is humanly possible, a

reduction in employment in the public sector being added to the inevitable unemployment created by the energy shortage in the private sector. It is the consumption of fuel and power by the public sector that has to be reduced, not its employment of people. There would be no point, in the wholly unique situation we face, in saving public expenditure by deliberately reducing the number of public servants.
I think that answers the two points made by the hon. Member for Spark-brook. We do not wish cuts to be applied to teacher recruitment. The hon. Gentleman implied that increasing taxation would be the alternative. I have specifically quoted that part from my right hon. Friend's speech to show that it would not. The purpose of the public expenditure cuts is to save the consumption of fuel and power by the public sector
If the situation is indeed serious, as my right hon. Friend said, and calls for drastic measures, it is also uncertain. That is why my right hon. Friend concluded by saying:
I do not think that any of my predecessors would dispute that, in the face of the many uncertainties ahead of us over the coming; year, an economic judgment at this time is—to put it mildly—more difficult than usual. That is why it is important to say quite openly that, while I believe that the judgment I have made is the right one, I shall not hesitate to take, at any time, any further action which may be required in the national interest."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December 1973; Vol. 866, c. 963–5.]
It is against this background that the cuts made in expenditure in 1974–75, not only in education but across the whole of the public expenditure sector, must be seen. Within the total cuts of £1,200 million in 1974–75 the Chancellor's statement attributed £182 million to the combined programmes for education, arts and science for Great Britain.
Excluding the arts and science, and non-university education in Scotland, the total saving to be found from planned expenditure on education is £157 million. Of this total, reductions in capital expenditure account for £104 million and in recurrent expenditure for £53 million. The £157 million reduction must be set against a projected total expenditure for the year of well over £3,500 million. We must therefore keep the cuts in perspective. Perhaps I should point out that the figures that I am using are calculated on the same basis as those


used by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In other words, they are based on the 1973 survey prices. I thought it best to keep to those rather than to update some of them, because that might confuse the issue.
I shall now deal in turn with the effects of these reductions, first, on school buildings, second, on the procurement side of local education authorities and, third, on higher and further education.
The steps that we have taken regarding school building relate to two factors. The first is the overheating of the building industry last year leading to the severe increase in building costs referred to by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 8th October. This led to a deferment of building programmes by three months. I think that the hon. Member for Spark-brook said August, but it was, in fact, October.
The second is that the Chancellor's statement on 17th December resulted in the reduced programmes for 1973–74 and 1974–75 set out in a recent circular from the Department.
In deciding upon the reduced programmes we have taken into account the need to preserve as far as possible school projects designed to provide additional places, special school projects, nursery education and—an item to which I know local authorities attach particular importance—the minor works programme.
In all, school building projects to the value of over £300 million will be eligible to start in the period between 1st January this year and June 1975. We have also been at pains to assure a programme of school building as far ahead as is possible in the present difficult economic circumstances, and the circular covers work to be started up to June 1975. This should enable local education authorities and the building industry to organise their programmes of building work to the best advantage. Final details of the new schools programmes are now being settled with authorities, and we have already approved a number of projects since the beginning of the month. In fact, there is no difference between the way that basic needs programmes are scrutinised now and the way that they have previously been scrutinised.
I turn now to the saving on procurement which affects local education authorities' recruitment expenditure.

Mr. Neil Carmichael: I wonder whether the right hon. Lady could help me. In a reply given by the Under-Secretary at the English Department of Education and Science to the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) it was said that no reduction was to be made in the nursery school capital programme in 1974–75. I have had a reply from the Scottish Office stating that the nursery school programme would be postponed from April 1974 to October 1974. Does the right hon. Lady's figure mean that there is a postponement in capital expenditure? If so, would it not have been better to give that answer in the reply to the hon. Member for South Angus?

Mrs. Thatcher: The postponement arises from the moratorium, which meant only a three-month postponement. That means that the programme to which the hon. Gentleman referred for 1974–75 will start at the beginning of July and run for a year instead of running from 1st April to 1st April. It is a three-month postponement. Otherwise the full nursery school programme will be retained. I am afraid that I cannot answer for Scotland. I have enough problems without that.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is the right hon. Lady aware that some areas—London, Leicester, and the like—have had an enormous problem thrust upon them regarding immigrant children? Some of these areas, particularly New-ham, were already bursting at the seams and in need of more school places, and so on. Will she be careful to do nothing to exacerbate the already difficult problem that we have in my constituency? Otherwise, I assure her, some very serious problems will be created.

Mrs. Thatcher: Increasing immigrant numbers is usually dealt with under the basic needs programme, and it will continue to be dealt with in that way in future.
I turn now to procurement expenditure. Of the saving required, £53 million is due to be met from reductions in procurement expenditure. Most of this saving—£48 million—falls on current expenditure by local authorities. But that figure


of £48 million must be compared with the expenditure forecast for the same year. The relevant rate support grant expenditure forecasts for education for 1974–75 amount to more than £2,800 million. I should say that the figures in the Rate Support Grant White Paper—hon. Gentlemen might find them confusing because they do not appear to be the same—are not at 1973 survey prices but at November 1974 survey prices, which are higher—£2,800 million rises to £3,100 million.
Even after the procurement reduction, which represents only 1¾ per cent. of the total projected expenditure by local education authorities, these forecasts allow for an increase of about £60 million above the estimated level of expenditure during the current financial year—that is, next year's forecasts are £60 million above the level in the current financial year. The kinds of expenditure which constitute procurement and from which local authorities are, therefore, expected to seek the necessary savings were fully explained in an excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary during the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill on 16th January. His speech gave a great deal of valuable information, but perhaps I could reiterate the most important points.
In accordance with the Government's overriding strategy, the cuts are calculated from a base which entirely excludes expenditure on staff, notably teachers—we have already dealt with that. Within the strict ambit of procurement, the calculations recognise that the authorities have to meet rent and rates, which by and large are irreducible and so they are not expected to be cut. They thus exclude this expenditure and also the cost of food and some other goods and services for the school meals service. Some things are outside the definition of procurement and, therefore, are not taken into account in reaching the base of £480 million from which the 10 per cent. cut is to be made; for example, maintenance allowances and other grants such as clothing grants to pupils.
The Government will shortly be issuing guidelines to local authorities about the steps they might take to secure the necessary reductions in their current expenditure. These will reinforce what my hon. Friend has already said and the guidance conveyed to the local authority

associations by my Department during the rate support grant negotiations. I must leave it to individual authorities to decide how best to act in their own individual situations.
I turn now to higher and further education. At 1973 prices the original starts value of the 1973–74 and 1974–75 higher and further education building programmes was about £200 million. In the first half of 1973–74 projects worth about £40 million were started, so work to a total value of about £160 million was affected, first by the three-month suspension announced in October and then by the decisions on public expenditure announced on 17th December.
The Department's circular issued on 18th December said that a limited programme of higher and further education projects would be eligible for approval in the period from 1st July 1974 to 30th June 1975. I cannot give details but it may well mean that about 30,000 to 40,000 fewer purpose-built higher education places will be available by the academic year 1976–77 than had been planned.
In the circumstances the colleges and universities will do their utmost to get the greatest possible use out of the very substantial stock of buildings and equipment already in use or under construction. Where there are buildings originally provided for one teaching purpose, for example, which could now be more intensively used for another, there must be no delay in pressing them into the most profitable service, whether within institutions or by reorganisation in response to Circular 7/73—I shall come to the Robbins point in a moment. Even so, the forward estimates of current expenditure on higher education over the next few years must realistically reflect that the numbers of students to be provided for will be lower than assumed in the plans previously drawn up and this, in turn, will contribute to the public expenditure savings required under the Chancellor's statement.
The local education authorities will be considering how far this helps them to meet the reduction required in their expenditure in 1974–75. For the universities, we have already announced the withholding for that year of supplementation of their grants in respect of 1973 price


rises and a further reduction of £15 million in the equipment grant. These are exceptional measures, but we think that they are justified by an exceptional situation, and the adjustments required within the institutions will, I recognise, not be easy.
We must not, however, jump too quickly to alarming conclusions about the effect that these reductions will have on the higher education opportunities for young people over the next few years. The Education White Paper went out of its way to emphasise that its 1981 targets left much room for flexibility and variation in response to changes in demand as they became apparent. It is now clear that there has been a falling off in the demand for higher education in 1972 and 1973 on a scale that could not have been foreseen.
The decline since 1969 in the proportion of those with two or more A level passes entering higher education, which was becoming apparent when the White Paper was being prepared, has recently become more marked. Even if the proportion were to fall no further, the 1981 requirement for higher education places might be more like 700,000 than the 750,000 which was the White Paper's longer-term planning basis.
We had begun this reappraisal of the likely future demand for higher education well before the October moratorium. When we have carried it further, we shall consult and give further guidance to the University Grants Committee and the other interests concerned. Meanwhile, it is clear that even by 1976 student numbers will be running appreciably below the levels, explicit and implicit, in the White Paper. Already in this present academic year, the number of university students is 6,500 short of the number assumed in the quinquennial settlement. In the polytechnics and other further education colleges, recruitment is less buoyant than we expected.
My conclusion is that we may be able still, despite the loss of the building programme places to which I have referred, to meet the effective demand for higher education in 1976.

Mr. Hattersley: May?

Mrs. Thatcher: Yes, may—I do not over-emphasise it. The recommend-

dation in the Third Report from the Expenditure Committe, on postgraduate education, published last week—that the number of students doing postgraduate research immediately after taking their first degree should be considerably reduced—is relevant to what I have just been saying. The Government will be considering the report with care and will present their observations in the House in due course.
We cannot quantify the likely effects of the public expenditure reductions on the rest of the further education system, precisely because of those characteristics which are at the same time the sources of its strength—the great variety of different kinds of level of course, the ability of the service to respond to local demand, and so forth. Both the building programme and the current expenditure reductions will force the local education authorities to look critically at the courses they are offering in this sector. But I believe that they will find it possible to protect and maintain the most essential of these activities.
I must say a separate word about the Russell Report on Adult Education. I said just before Christmas that the Chancellor's statement obliged me most reluctantly to postpone for the time being the consultations on the report to which I had been looking forward. It would be unwise, and unfair to those who are charged at the moment with planning reductions in public expenditure programmes up and down the country, to embark on this until we can see the public expenditure prospects a little more clearly. I share the disappointment at having to defer further consideration of the report's explicit recommendations, but at the same time I take comfort in the steady growth of the adult education service that took place even while the committee was still deliberating.
We have tried to manage this substantial and necessary cut in public expenditure in a way which has preserved the essential priorities in the education service. It is a great disappointment to us that we have had to suspend for the time being the programme for the replacement of old primary schools, but the building programmes for necessary school places—basic needs—for special schools and for nursery education and for


minor works have been preserved. Indeed,. it has been our objective to protect the schools as far as possible, particularly in the light of the evidence that I have quoted of the falling off in the demand for higher education.
I recognise that the cuts are serious, but they are not disastrous. The level of expenditure from which they are made is very high. My hon. Friend reminded us in the debate on 16th January of the advances that the education service had made. Over the past 10 years successive Governments have devoted to education a rapidly rising share of our growing national resources—from less than 5 per cent. of GNP in 1962 to nearly 7 per cent. in 1972.
We cannot yet tell how things will go in the months and years ahead, but in the present economic circumstances the Government's essential priorities in education have been substantially preserved and the forecast education expenditure for next year is £3,500 million. I therefore ask the House to approve the amendment.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: I listened with great interest to the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State and noted that she used the phrases "cost yardstick" and "small reduction in the amount spent on education in the coming two years". I appreciate with her that it is a problem that we all have to face. However, this afternoon I am interested in a particular school in my constituency in Wandsworth.
This school has the normal problems of a normal school in London—it suffers from a shortage of teachers, from part-time education, and from having a large percentage of immigrant children. I have to declare a vested interest in that three of my children went to this school and I now have a granddaughter there.
Fifty-two of my constituents wrote to the right hon. Lady last week about Honeywell Road School, Battersea. Unfortunately, about 18 months ago, the school roof was completely burnt out and other fire damage was done to the first and second floors. As a result, a huge corrugated iron roof had to be erected to make the school habitable. There are now to be cuts in expenditure on repairs and closer scrutiny is to be given

to the cost of roofing, but I ask the right hon. Lady to give special consideration to this case, because it deserves it.
The roof caught fire in June 1972 and following that the Inner London Education Authority commenced the preparation of plans for re-roofing. Due to a dispute with its architects, ILEA could not decide whether to have a pitched roof or a flat roof, but it finally came down in favour of a flat roof. It then submitted its plans to the local council—the London Borough of Wandsworth—and the town planning committee turned down that plan after consultation with local inhabitants. The school is a landmark and was well known for its nicely gabled and pitched roof, and local people wanted the roof to be restored to its original form. The plans went back to ILEA, which in 1973 finally decided on plans for a gabled and pitched roof.
That was where the trouble started. Because of the over-heating of the building industry, there were difficulties about getting a tender for the job. The result was that time went by and it was not until December 1973 that the authorities were able to get acceptance of a tender for £121,500. Will the right hon. Lady do her best to expedite the repair of this roof? During the gale in London a fortnight ago the temporary roof was blown off and the children could not go to school for a week.
I should like an undertaking that the right hon. Lady's Department will do all in its power to speed up the re-roofing of this school. ILEA has been told that, because of the steel shortage, it is unlikely that it will get the steel for the roof for some time, but will the right hon. Lady do her best with ILEA and with the Department of Trade and Industry to ensure that the roof is restored as soon as possible so that the children may go to school? It is a primary school for 400 children, and the right hon. Lady's interest in primary schools is well known.
I hope that the right hon. Lady's cuts will not delay this renovation, which is required so that the children may be safe while they are at school. That is why I have raised this constituency matter, which is of great urgency, and I hope to have the right hon. Lady's undertaking that she will expedite this work as much as possible.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: The hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Ernest G. Perry) has made his special plea with moderation and I hope that my right hon. Friend will listen to it. Labour Members rarely give her credit for the skill and energy with which she fights the battle for extra resources for education.
At the time of the General Election in 1966, the then Prime Minister, now the Leader of the Opposition, boasted that for the first time in the country's history expenditure on education was running ahead of expenditure on defence. As one who takes a great interest in defence matters, I am not sure that that is necessarily something to boast about, but the position today—and Labour Members often complain about the size of the defence budget—is that expenditure on education is now running almost £900 million a year ahead of expenditure on defence. By the time we get to 1977–78 the disparity between defence and education budgets will be £1,500 million. Given that disparity, that enormous increase in the size of the education bill, one cannot say that the Secretary of State has been lax in her fight for her Department.
I am, however, worried about one aspect of the check in the regular surge in education expenditure which will come about as a result of the expenditure cuts announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. That is the cut in the spending on school books. In reply to a Question of mine some time ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that expenditure on school books in 1972–73 was running at about £23 million a year. That is only a tiny fraction, less than 1 per cent., of our total education expenditure. I go hand in hand with the leadership of the National Union of Teachers in thinking that this sum is far too small; yet an undue proportion of the cuts is likely to fall on this already lamentably small sum.
In an important letter to the Daily Telegraph recently Mr. Peter Mother-sole, the director of the Educational Publishers Council, said
By far the greater part of local education authority spending is so committed (for example, teachers' salaries) as to be impossible to cut, or only susceptible to long-term pruning. The result is that savings have to be made in the 15 per cent. or so of the educa-

tion budget which is 'discretionary.' Books and materials are a part of this small and vulnerable portion.
What does that mean in the classroom? In the Greater London Borough of Bromley we are faced with the problem of recruiting teachers. I say here parenthetically that I salute the teachers for having settled within phase 3. In return I hope that the Government, in the not-too-distant future, will be able to take a more flexible attitude about the London allowance. We have a recruiting problem and we are under-spending on teachers' salaries. My education committee decided, therefore, that it would be sensible to spend £24,000 of this saving on extra books for secondary schools. This proposal was approved by the finance committee. But now that the cuts have come the council has had to look again at this matter. I hope that we shall be able to go ahead with this extra spending on books, but the present situation is uncertain.
What of next year? Our procurement budget will have to be cut back. If I were to make an informed guess about what the estimates will contain, it would be that in my borough there will have to be a cut-back on education equipment, on paper and on school books of rather more than £1 per child in school. I suspect that the way in which that cut will be made is by holding the present level of capitation allowance to what it is this year. This means that the full weight of inflation in publishing costs will fall on the capitation allowance and that will mean a cut in the standard of the provision of books. I suspect also that book prices will escalate fairly sharply during the next year.
I happen to be a member of the council of the Consumers Associations, which publishes the magazine Which? I have been looking at our paper bill for the next year. We do not get our paper in Britain. It comes largely from Sweden. Comparing March 1973 costs with March 1974 costs, the increase is about 87 per cent. That is not uncommon in publishing circles. I have no doubt that the increase in book costs during the next year will be very substantial. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will be able to find some way of approaching local education authorities and taking whatever action she can to see that the


increase in expenditure does not fall unduly on the provision of text books.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made a rather grudging reference in passing to student grants. This is also an issue of considerable interest in my constituency, for in relation to the population as a whole, Bromley has the fifth highest proportion of students in higher education in Britain. I fully appreciate that if one were fully to meet student demands concerning grants, this would be not only a blow to phase 3 but also a blow to common sense. However, undoubtedly the present level of grant causes hardship to some students, and to some parents. Given our present economic difficulties, I hope that the Secretary of State will ask her Department to look very closely indeed at the Norwegian system of a mixed grant and loan. I spent some time last summer looking at that system. It seems to operate in a way that does not cause upsets to students, their parents, taxpayers or the Government. I believe that the only way in which we can resolve this pressing problem is eventually to introduce in this country a system of mixed grants and loans.
There is a lot for my right hon. Friend to do. However, we should acknowledge this afternoon that she has already achieved a very great deal. To censure her would be ridiculous.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Clement Freud: I should like to remind the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State that during the last education debate the Government accepted the Opposition's motion. We on the Opposition side of the House had hoped that that would be the beginning of great inter-party co-operation. Indeed, I was particularly hopeful because the right hon. Lady, visiting my constituency and making a speech which was clearly totally unconnected with the fact that it was believed there would be a General Election, was reported in that excellent newspaper—which is, unfortunately, not readily available in the House—the Wisbech Standard, as having said that
One thing that would not be touched would be the teaching profession.
I feel very strongly that that is a long way from the truth. While I am pre-

pared to believe that the right hon. Lady was not proposing to hang or to execute any teachers, I believe that any cut-back in education will directly touch the teaching profession. The ratio between students and teachers touches the teaching profession. The fact that no extra buildings are being erected will touch the teaching profession. To say that teachers were the one thing which would not be touched was totally untrue.
I was also distressed to note the pleasure that the right hon. Lady had in announcing that fewer young people were taking up university education than she had expected. This is sad and shameful. She must know, as do we, that the reason for this is that fewer young people are able to go to university in view of the inadequacy of student grants which are now given to them.
Ninety per cent. of the annual educational budget in local education authorities is already committed in advance of the year of grant. Therefore, it follows that any cut in expediture is concentrated on the uncommitted 10 per cent. where the LEA has the choice and the potential to enrich its own service. I welcome the right hon. Lady's assertion that she believes in the individuality of LEAs, but I seriously question their ability to practise individuality on the educational cuts which are now proposed.
In my constituency, at the village school at Sutton there are two temporary buildings built in the playground which are currently being used as classrooms. The village of Sutton is expanding and even those two temporary classrooms will not be big enough. How, with the cuts in education, can they do anything but encroach further on the school playground?
A realistic and desirable educational policy should further the individual needs of the community and assess its development to promote a local identity. The Government promote belief in a free society where people have choice. This will not be easy on the proposed cuts. Nothing is as important as educational freedom, and yet the Government's measures will have the effect of dramatically reducing the freedom of our educational services. Let it be remembered that the educational requirements of East Anglia are not the same as those of East London. The trouble


about the cut-back is that it severely affects so much. It affects the supply of books, which has increased by about 20 per cent. in the last year. In many of the larger towns and cities there is real illiteracy, and this will increase unless more books can be made available.
The shortage of money will now prohibit the improvement of the student-staff ratio, and this is particularly serious as there are 16-year-olds staying on, in many cases involuntarily, and teachers believe sincerely that, unless the ratio of staff to pupil is improved, the cases of violence and indiscipline will escalate and such good as might have come with the raising of the age limit will be actually reversed.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) brought up the question of defence. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) asked: where will the money come from? From defence £178 million is taken. Our defence needs are not linked with our national prosperity. How is it that we can do without £178 million worth of defence just because of a payments crisis? If this saving does not harm our security it should have been made anyway and the benefits redistributed where they could better be used.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. Michael Roberts: Earlier an hon. Member opposite—I did not notice who it was—called out, "Ask the National Union of Teachers what it thinks." I can only assume that it was not one of the many members of the NUT on the benches opposite. The implication of the cry was that there was total opposition to my right hon. Friend from the NUT. That is not so. It is not the case at national executive level. It is certainly not the case in staff rooms throughout the United Kingdom.
Members of the NUT recognise the value and approve of so many of the things that my right hon. Friend has done. For instance, they greatly approve of the raising of the school leaving age. They approve of the tremendous drive in primary school building. Those in the staff rooms approve, too, of the tremendous battle my right hon. Friend has put up for improvements in teachers' super-

annuation rights. We should not for one moment accept the comment that was hurled from the other side.
I heard the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) ask—he can easily check this, because he read his notes very carefully—" How can teachers continue doing their job when there will be no extra building? This will affect the teaching profession." Does the hon. Gentleman believe that as a result of the proposals and cuts there will be no extra building? Does he think that no extra building is going on? Does he not recognise that the building for basic purposes will continue? Does he not recognise that the nursery project will continue? If I am wrong in the quotation I have made, the hon. Gentleman can check his words so easily.

Mr. Molloy: To save the hon. Gentleman from remaining in suspense for too long, I will tell him now. He is absolutely wrong.

Mr. Roberts: The term "cuts in education expenditure" tends to conjure up the image of reduced standards. This is a travesty of the truth. It really means that the expansion programme cannot go on as one hoped that it would, that new developments cannot go on at the rate that we hoped that they would, that improvements that were based and financed on an expanding economy, have to be postponed.
Hon. Members opposite would do well to recognise some of the reasons why these cuts have been made in our programmes. Anyone who does not recognise that this is related to the energy crisis and that there is no growth in the economy in 1974 and the reasons for it is not facing reality.
If right hon. and hon. Members opposite are as passionately concerned with the education of children as they pretend, they might well use some of their influence with the National Union of Mineworkers so that we can create the energy necessary to get on with the production that will finance the school programmes and, what is more, finance all the social programmes that we all hold to be so desirable.

Mr. George Thomas: The hon. Member is my Member of Parliament. Will he spell it out a little


more clearly? Is he blaming the miners for the cuts in the education service?

Mr. Roberts: Only my most distinguished constituent could have asked a question quite of that nature. Clearly it is not my intention to blame the miners for anything in this respect. What I was saying and what I will say again was that, if we could improve the energy situation, we could improve our production and that would restore more quickly than anything else the cuts that the Government have had to make. Surely that is a matter of agreement between both sides. I should like to make—

Miss Joan Lester: I do not want to misunderstand the hon. Gentleman, but I think he said that if hon. Members on this side would use their influence to get the miners to look at things differently, these cuts would not be necessary. Now he is saying that he is not blaming the miners. Is he saying that the energy crisis has nothing to do with the miners?

Mr. Roberts: I am suggesting that it would be good if all of us, including hon. Members opposite, persuaded the miners of the need to go back to work.
I wish to refer to the pre-1903 schools, which are those in the replacement programme. The pre-1903 schools were, of course, antiques when the Labour Party were in office. The Socialists did not do much to improve that position. My right hon. Friend should look again at her priorities in this respect. In rural areas particularly there is a greater need for replacing pre-1903 schools than perhaps in some urban areas because in many cities, such as the one I represent, the pre-1903 schools—many of them primary schools—were built in the latter part of the nineteenth century and are substantial buildings. Those built in the rural areas are often much more tumbledown. In some rural areas perhaps we should emphasise the replacement of primary schools rather than the introduction of nursery education. We should obviously like to do both, but if there is to be a cut, this might be a better priority.
If one accepts—I think one has to accept it—that in the present economic circumstances some cuts are essential, my right hon. Friend should look at the possibility of making a virtue of necessity. She has been rightly credited with the

great reform of raising the school leaving age. This is something for which many teachers, and educationists have worked for many years. I myself took part in committees which prepared for ROSLA, preparing curricula suitable for that reform. But we should be ignoring reality if we did not recognise that some teachers are now saying that perhaps too many children aged 15 to 16 are staying on in schools and that some of them are a problem too great even for the skilled teaching profession to handle. Therefore I ask my right hon. Friend to consider two points.

Mr. Ernest Armstrong: Would the hon. Member not agree that if there is a problem it is largely because professional teachers lack the necessary resources? These cuts will make it even more difficult for dedicated teachers to do the job which they are anxious to do and will do if given the necessary resources?

Mr. Roberts: That is an interesting point of view. Much of what the hon. Member says is true. But what I am saying reflects the views of many teachers, and, what is more, professional skilled teachers—people perfectly capable of doing the job. Yet these people, well equipped and well trained, with all the resources, are in difficulties with a small minority of pupils. Anyone who does not recognise the problem is ignoring the reality of the staff room and the classroom.
Having provided for children to stay on until 16, we could allow them to leave school at 15 if they had a good job to go to and the prospect of day release to continue their education. If both teacher and parent agreed that a child would not benefit from staying on at school there might under those circumstances be a case for allowing him to leave. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] It is no good hon. Members saying, "Disgraceful". I am talking from experience of secondary education. I have taught most of my life in Cardiff secondary schools.

Mr. Armstrong: How many hon. Members would allow their children to leave school at 15?

Mr. Roberts: I do not know because it is an absurd question to ask. If my


own child were not benefiting from school, but were becoming a complete delinquent and a thorough nuisance, and someone offered to take him on in a good job and allow him to go on day release, I should be happy to agree. But that is totally irrelevant.
I have some statistics to illustrate my argument. Before the raising of the leaving age, perhaps 40 to 50 per cent. of children stayed on to 16. If we now drop the numbers staying on from the 100 per cent. which is statutorily required, about 90 per cent. would still stay on, which would be a great improvement. The present truancy figures mean that the drop would in fact be only about 2 per cent.—and 10 per cent. of the age group would be in employment and doing day release. Thus, in an 11-to-16 school of 1,200 pupils, there would be an actual reduction, bearing in mind the truancy figures, of 24 pupils. That would be one class and would make a significant saving; it might indeed improve the whole nature of the school concerned. None of us is keen on cuts and all of us would like to expand education at a great rate. My right hon. Friend should give further consideration to this suggestion.

4.58 p.m.

Miss Joan Lestor: I am speaking from the back benches because I wanted to speak mainly about my own authority of Berkshire. I would not want anyone to think that I had joined some others in leaving the Front Bench. I totally agree with all my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said about the divided nation in education.
Before I make my main points about my area I wish to make a couple of general points on what the Secretary of State said in opening the debate. I fail to see the significance of talking about guidelines for local authorities when local authorities have already stated their intentions. I fail also to understand the situation about nursery education. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael) said in reading out the answer by the Under-Secretary of State, there will be no cuts in the capital expenditure of nursery schools for 1974–75. However, local authorities, including the Berkshire authority, are postponing the development of nursery classes

—in the case of Berkshire to the extent of £15,000.
It has been in every national newspaper that Berkshire is postponing the addition of further nursery classes. I accept for the moment, for the sake of argument, that it is not an abolition but a postponement; but what will happen to the £15,000? Will it be added to money spent on future expansion of nursery classes in our area, or will it be lost for ever? Will inflation be taken into account in a few months' time? On our reckoning, £15,000 will be worth a great deal less in three months or six months.
The Under-Secretary, in answering a question on nursery education, has said that there will be no cuts in capital expenditure on nursery education. People took him to mean that the nursery programme would continue. Now we are told that part of it will be postponed. I should like to know the exact nature of the postponement and whether inflation will be taken into account.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Timothy Raison): Could the hon. Gentleman—the hon. Lady help me by saying whether the postponement is on the capital or the recurrent side?

Miss Lestor: I do not know the answer, but I understand from what I have been told today that it is on the capital side. The hon. Gentleman indicates that it is not. If it is on the recurrent side, the argument is exactly the same, because nursery schooling—that is. nursery classes and places—will be postponed. The nursery school programme is being at least deferred to the tune of £15.000; irrespective of whether the capital programme will be affected, places are being affected to the tune of a great deal of money. It is no good saying that the programme will not be affected when it is being affected, whether or not it is part of the capital programme.
In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook rightly made the point that the cuts were more divisive in terms of education than anything so far under the Secretary of State's administration. We had a debate last week about "one nation", when everyone talked about the need for equality, for


people to regard each other not in terms of class or status but as individuals.
Berkshire is a new authority, comprising the old Berkshire and Slough and Reading. The cuts it proposes, which are being approved, are cuts in areas where the children are in the greatest need. It is diabolical that it is not proposing to cut grants to the independent and private sector of education, but to increase them. The suggestion that it should not increase them by £20,000 but should reduce them was turned down in favour of cutting the nursery class programme by £15,000 and cutting expenditure on teachers in colleges of further education by £27,500. Expenditure on special education—mainly of maladjusted children—will be cut by £2,000 and playgroups by £5,000. A £7,500 increase in expenditure on school meals in ESN schools will not be allowed, and expenditure on the teaching staff of such schools is to be cut by £10,000.
The right hon. Lady and her colleagues talk about not encroaching upon improving standards. They—the Secretary of State for Social Services in particular—have talked a great deal about deprivation. They have also talked about doing things for the under-privileged. I do not understand how they can sustain that argument and allow local authorities to do what they are doing, particularly in relation to the private, independent and direct grant sector, at the same time as they are cutting expenditure on the education of ESN and maladjusted children, on playgroups and nursery schools, and on all the other things which in the main benefit those in the greatest need. It is one of the biggest indictments of the Government that they have throughout talked with a false tongue. They have said one thing and done another.

Mr. Raison: Can the hon. Lady tell me how the authority is increasing grants to the direct grant schools? The report I have seen in The Guardian is confusing.

Miss Lestor: The grants are to be increased by £20,000 to level them up in the whole of the authority's area to the grant given particularly by Reading and, I regret to say, Slough, when it related to Buckinghamshire. The overall grant is now £195,000. It was suggested that the increase should not be made, but

that the money should be used for the benefit of nursery education and to avoid the various other cuts I have mentioned. However, the authority agreed to make the increase. After the debate on direct grant schools it seemed to the local authority and those who supported the increase that they had the full backing of the Government. They said that many hon. Members on the Government side had argued that that was the right way in which to allocate funds.
We should bear in mind that the grant to that sector will mean that parents with an income of £4,000 a year will receive the equivalent of £235 in grant to the direct grant and other schools affected. Even parents whose income is about £7,000 a year benefit to the extent of the equivalent of £50. I do not see how a Government who argue that they are trying to deal with deprivation and inequality can allow that sort of thing. We shall take what action we can by way of demonstrations and protests to the authority.
I remember the arguments in the House about direct grant schools a few months ago, when Conservative Members argued that parents should be given the right to pay for their children's education if they wished. I agree with that—as a short-term argument. My long-term aim is different. If that is the argument, let the parents have that right. But why should the local authority, in times of stress and strain on resources, be allowed to compensate and assist parents who are paying? If they want freedom, I would give them all the freedom they want to pay their fees. I would abolish the grant and allow those parents to pay what it costs for their children's education. Then the fat would be in the fire. I would rather do that than cut essential services, which is detrimental to the interests of those in the greatest need.
Berkshire was told that it had to cut expenditure from £15 million to £3·8 million. It cannot do that without affecting the essential services; nor can any other local authority, I suspect. Berkshire has estimated that where it spent £½ million last year it now has to spend £2½ million merely because of inflation. When we take that figure into account, we can see that Berkshire and others, with the full support of the Government, have their priorities wrong.


Both the circular and the Under-Secretary in a Written Answer on 21st January have stated that there would be some cuts in the youth service. I hope the right hon. Lady will think twice about that. Young people need this service to be expanded and on Friday last many of us supported a Bill designed to make a greater contribution to the youth service. It is disgusting and socially divisive to support cuts in this service.
I fail to understand the point which was made about cuts in teacher training. Why is it that Essex and Lincoln have already reduced their proposals for teacher training? Many of us feel angry at these cuts.
I do not deny that we on this side of the House deferred the raising of the school leaving age. That was a very great pity, and I was opposed to it. What shocks me is that nobody on the Government side of the House has yet said that these cuts are disgraceful. When my own party was in Government there were enough hon. Members opposite who said "We do not support it; we believe it is socially undesirable." Where is the opposition from hon. Members opposite to these cuts? I hope that we shall hear some opposition from them. This is, indeed, a case of closing ranks and not allowing an individual expression of opinion.
In Berkshire and in many other local authority areas this appears to be a wilful exacerbation of conspicuous inequalities. We shall be worse off in terms of educational inequality as a result of these cuts than we have ever been in the last 10 years. It is most regrettable, and I hope that parents and teachers will rise up and protest as we in Berkshire will protest on 25th February.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to be able to intervene in this debate because I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about any cuts which are made in education. But if cuts have to be made—and I believe that everyone will agree that in the present grave economic crisis, all services must face cuts—education, like other social and welfare services, will have to take its share. I side almost entirely with my right hon.

Friend. I believe that her priorities are in the main correct, if cuts have got to take place. I therefore want to deal individually with the various sectors of education.
First, I wish to deal with higher education. I think there will be very few, if any, in this House, who do not agree that higher educataion should and must take the brunt of any cuts in education expenditure, because here is a sector of education which costs a great deal of money, a sector in which since the war vast sums of money have been spent—I believe, in the opinion of many, to the detriment of other sectors of education, and naturally I refer to nursery and primary education specifically. Therefore, I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that the major brunt in cuts must be accepted by higher education. In higher education there is the maximum room for flexibility. I hope that those who take an active interest in education will agree—indeed, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said this at the Dispatch Box—that in the sphere of higher education there exists the maximum flexibility, where one can cut and do the minimum of damage to the education service.
I want to make specific mention of student grants in higher education. Here is a matter which requires serious attention. I am fully aware that this matter is being deal with by my right hon. Friend and her Department, and that the National Union of Students is considering how best the student grant can be increased to meet the very serious situation which many students face at present. There is no doubt that students are finding it increasingly difficult on the present statutory grants to find suitable places at which to stay during their period of higher education. We should not forget also that the cost of education equipment and materials is increasing dramatically.
I turn to the raising of the school leaving age, which featured prominently in the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor). I had some reservation about the raising of the school leaving age. I felt that my right hon. Friend might well have delayed some of the expenditure which is being directed to the raising of the school leaving age, because in so many local


educational authority areas children are able to stay on at school after their fifteenth birthday, and, indeed, many already stay until they are 18 and over. This is done on the recommendation of their class teachers, supported, of course, by the headmaster or headmistress of the school. I agree with the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) that this does not necessarily happen in every area. I agree that there are areas where secondary places are in great demand and are limited as a result of which schools are keen to get rid of pupils at the age of 15. I should like those schools to change their policy so that it is not necessary to direct so much money into a blanket raising of the school leaving age.
I came from a county which is very progressive in secondary education. We encouraged our children to stay on at school. I refer to the County of Warwick, not to the county in which my present constituency is situated. In that county a very high percentage of pupils were staying on in the ordinary secondary high schools and secondary modern schools. We should have done a lot more than has been done to arrange link courses with colleges of further education. I believe that the expensive facilities which exist in colleges of further education could have been put to much greater use by pupils in secondary schools.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that all education authorities will take advantage of the colleges in their area so that, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Michael Roberts), where a child obviously does not have an academic leaning the facilities which exist in colleges of further education can be made available to him or her. In those colleges of further education the facilities and the experience of teachers and lecturers can be very useful to these young people.
May I now mention secondary education. As to secondary education, I hope that some of the more haphazard and chaotic schemes put forward for reorganisation will now be shelved by the cuts which my right hon. Friend has been forced to make. If a little more time were spent in some areas and by some education authorities in considering the effects of certain schemes of reorganisa-

tion which have been put forward, in the long term the educational advantages of pausing and waiting until a proper system could be devised in an area would be clearly seen, rather than hurrying into a scheme, as has happened in some areas, out of political dogma.
I do not intend to mention the subject of direct grant schools. I agree entirely with the steps which have been taken by my right hon. Friend. The costs being faced by parents and by these schools are the same as the costs which are faced by any other parent and by any other school.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: The primary and secondary schools are asked to cut their fuel, light and heat, they are having to go without repairs and do without books—they are subject to a 10 per cent. cut in all these things—yet the direct grant schools, having had an 11 per cent. increase in their grant from the Government—some of them have, in fact, put up their fees—are exempted from these cuts. Is that fair? That is all I am asking.

Mr. Winterton: I do not think that that question is asked in the correct terms. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind all the costs over the years which have been assimilated or met by the direct grant schools. The additional money which my right hon. Friend has made available to them is no more than they deserve.
I come now to the primary and junior sector of education. I very much regret the cuts which are proposed for the replacement programme for pre-1903 schools. The real inequality over many years has been in the primary sector. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give serious consideration to every proposal for a new primary school put forward by a local education authority. It is acknowledged by many educationists that the true foundation of educational progress for any child is set in the primary sector.
I regret the cuts which have to be made, and I only hope that these cuts will strike home with education authorities with large rural areas which have over the past few years, wrongly in my view, followed a programme for the closure of rural schools. This has been a sad mistake. It has robbed many a


small community of its central pillar. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will look carefully at proposals to close rural schools and, perhaps, will indicate that plans for closure already submitted by local education authorities should now be shelved. The shelving of such plans would be greatly to the advantage of children in rural areas.
On a good many occasions I have had to write to my right hon. Friend about rural schools, and in one or two instances, I am pleased to say, she has seen the point of view which I expressed on behalf of the many villagers in rural communities. She has been good enough to refuse an application by the county to close such schools. These schools provide a fine education. They may not have all the facilities, the chromium plate and the rest, which can be found in some modern schools, but they have first-class teachers, they have first-class morals and first-class discipline, and the results they achieve are first-class. Some of the finest teachers in the country work in rural schools, and I hope that they will be allowed to continue to teach in these schools.
The hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough was right to say that nursery education is another important sector. I have young children, and as a parent I fully appreciate the need for pre-school and nursery education. I hope that the cuts here will be of the mildest sort, and that the money which my right hon. Friend had hoped to direct to nursery education will be reallocated to that sector in the very near future.
To return for a moment to secondary education, I have a constituency matter to raise. The Cheshire education authority has submitted to the Department a proposal for the building of a grammar school in the Macclesfield area. There is dire need for further secondary places in this area, where a lot of residential building has taken place in recent years. Last year, under the selective system for secondary places, many boys could not be accommodated in the traditional and customary school—I refer to the King's School for boys at Macclesfield—and had to be sent many miles away to Wilmslow, which is not only inconvenient for the children and their parents but extremely costly in transport. I hope, therefore, that my right hon.

Friend will give sympathetic consideration to Cheshire's proposal for the first phase of a new mixed grammar school in Macclesfield.
I ask my right hon. Friend to give more than a cursory look, especially in primary, pre-school and nursery education, at all proposals for new schools which are submitted by education authorities. These are difficult times, but I know that in Cabinet meetings and elsewhere my right hon. Friend has fought hard for education. At the end of this Parliament she will be remembered as a Secretary of State who fought very hard for her service. Above all, the breakthrough which she has made in nursery education will long be remembered in the history of education. But, as I say, we live in serious times, and in the circumstances the cuts which my right hon. Friend has had to make are understandable. The House should accept the amendment.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) spent about 15 minutes telling us how worried he is about all the cuts and explaining his anxiety about a number of matters which he wants his right hon. Friend to consider sympathetically, and then, right at the end, he said that in the circumstances the cuts are desirable. We have heard that sort of argument from Government back benchers time and again on other issues.
We have reached a stage now in the House when any item of Great Britain's business which we have to debate is considered in an atmosphere of crisis. Everything is crisis. Under a Conservative Government we have crisis after crisis, and, what is worse, not a solution in sight—at least, not from the Government side.

Mr. J. C. Jennings: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that marvellous dictum of Sir Stafford Cripps about a previous Labour Government—"We staggered from crisis to crisis"?

Mr. Molloy: That intervention makes my point. The hon. Gentleman racked his brains to think of an answer to what I was saying—which he knows to be true—and he has to go back to a time just after the greatest war in history. Nothing shows more clearly the condemnation of


the entire Tory Party better than the fact that the hon. Gentleman, a respected and able back bencher, has to make such a poverty-stricken intervention.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: What is the hon. Gentleman's solution?

Mr. Molloy: I am coming to that. The first essential is to get rid of the present incumbents on the Treasury Bench. This has been made clear by all the speeches in the debate so far. I am glad that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) has returned to his place because I listened carefully to his speech and agreed with a good deal of what he said. I echo the anxiety which he expressed on behalf of his constituency. But he, too, divided his speech in the way we have come to expect from Conservative back benchers. In the first 10 seconds he congratulated his right hon. Friend, in the last 10 seconds he hoped that she would do the right thing, and in the intervening 15 minutes he told her how appalling the situation is, he criticised some of her proposals, and he appealed to her to do this, that and the other.
I have referred already to the atmosphere in which our debates are conducted nowadays. It has been developing over the past two years. Under the present Government everything is discussed in an atmosphere of emergency or of crisis—and, in the present situation, in an atmosphere of both.
It is sad to have to acknowledge the tremendous work done by members of both major parties on local authorities, the unsung councillors and aldermen who do so much and yet often have to pay the penalty for some of the decisions we make in this House. Often many of our sins are visited on them, and that happens irrespective of which Government are in power. Even so the penalties inflicted on them have never been as savage as they are now. They were encouraged by the Labour Government and, for a time, by the present Government to go ahead with all sorts of schemes. This they did.
The London borough of Ealing, for example, is in the middle of a massive change in the principle of education given there, a policy they were elected to carry out, and to which, in principle, there is no violent opposition from the Conservatives. Indeed, it is possible that the

Secretary of State will be visited by a delegation led by the Socialist leader of the council and supported by the Conservative leader of the opposition. That is an indication of what both parties think of the Secretary of State and her policies—at least in the London borough of Ealing—and there is some justification for it.
They are enraged at major as well as trivial matters. They are also frustrated with some of the policies that emanate from the Department of Education. They sometimes need the Shorter Oxford Dictionary beside them when translating what some of the circulars mean.
Confusion exists elsewhere, and I shall give the Secretary of State an example of it in the hope that she and her colleagues will look at it carefully. It concerns the provision of school meals by the education committee in Ealing. The borough must find an additional £600,000 for 1974–75 merely to maintain the status quo and irrespective of any cuts in expenditure. But this is a difficult matter for the local authorities. [Interruption.] Conservative Members should remember that they were elected on the basis of the Prime Minister's bogus promises, one of which was that he would cut prices at a stroke. I do not know whether the House will allow me to call that a lie or a fib or simply cheating, so I had better saying nothing about it except that it was grossly misleading and an abominable trick.
The people now see the way the price of food has gone up as a result of Britain entering the EEC. The Prime Minister's promises are forgotten, the price of food continues to rise and the local education authorities have to try to decide what food will cost them in 1974–75. In Ealing it will mean at least another £600,000 a year. [Interruption.] The Conservatives would do well to drop the silly idea that whatever the problem—even if it is only a matter of deciding why a particular horse did not win the Grand National—it is all the fault of the miners. That is a crass absurdity.
The local authorities have been asked to cut their use of fuel by 10 per cent. because of the increase in the cost. In Ealing we have had to abandon the transport of children to the various: municipal baths for their swimming lessons because the borough runs its own


transport. However, if a local authority employs private buses to carry the children they may continue unaffected. What on earth is the difference between fuel for the private bus and fuel for the local authority bus? Perhaps some of the geniuses at the Department will answer that question.

Mr. Winterton: Perhaps the hon. Member's borough is one of the few authorities to be faced with this problem. For years many county authorities outside London have hired private buses to take the children on outings or to the swimming pool, and they still do it. Is the hon. Member suggesting that these authorities are not affected, but that authorities in London are?

Mr. Molloy: I regret that the Government's policies have led to these crises and the restrictions. They have led to this silly and unfair position.
The same situation applies in connection with the building programmes. I am sure that many local authorities must be affected although I wish to deal with the problem as it afflicts the London borough of Ealing. It is connected with the hire-purchase restrictions, and I hope that the Minister will do something about it. The increase in the number of children attending school has made it necessary to hire mobile classrooms and other school buildings.
Ealing has estimated the increase or decrease in the number of children who will attend school for the first time or who are moving from primary school to secondary school. It faces a big increase. It knows that it will be impossible to build new schools. At the same time, it ought to make some endeavour to cope with the growing number of children coming into the schools, particularly at secondary level. To meet this bulge, Ealing decided to add classrooms to existing school premises. Under the new restrictions, however, it will have to discontinue even that. It will not be allowed to put up these moveable hutted classrooms, although they would have helped enormously. Admittedly, since Ealing could not build new schools, this would have been the second best course, but now it cannot even go ahead with relocatable classrooms and is back to square one. It is, therefore, in a serious dilemma.
If the Department refuses to make an exception and to help local authorities in this way, Ealing will have no alternative but more or less to go it alone. But that means creating a problem for the local people in years to come. The financing of revenue this year from next year's finance will go on and on. Ealing will be confronted by an almost Sisyphean task in overcoming the problem. But it will not succeed in overcoming it completely, and it will go on and on.
Instead of putting blanket restrictions on England and Wales, the right hon. Lady should consider whether she would not be justified in lifting certain of the restrictions. The same thing also applies to the major school building programme. At the moment, this is costing Ealing an excessively high interest rate. It has to find large sums of money for the loan repayment element. This is bound to mean, perhaps in the not too distant future, increasing the local rates, which will cause an outcry.
People will have to pay more rates as well as increased food prices, rents and the rest and will want more income. Thus, those things which now seem remote from the industrial scene ultimately will have an influence on it when men put in wage claims to meet increased expenditure, not only in rents and food prices but in rates.
I have asked the right hon. Lady a number of questions and it would be unfair to expect her to reply at the end of this debate. But I hope that she will consider some of the things I have said, because it is essentiali to get away from the present awful rigidity, the iron clamps of phase 3, for example. Instead of laying down hard, irrevocable rules, she should leave herself elbow room, because that is the sort of attitude which would help local authorities, not only in education services but in other activities.

Mr. Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how much elbow room he would like? The Leader of the Opposition seems unprepared to tell the country. He was asked a direct question on television and would not, or was unable to, tell the country the answer. Does the hon. Gentleman consider 16½ per cent. fairly generous, or is he out to achieve the sort of inflation experienced recently in Chile and South America?

Mr. Molloy: Here we are back at the miners again. The hon. Gentleman is tempting me into other arguments—for example, whether equipment used in our pits provided by the firm of August Thyssen brings in wages of £60 a week—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. I realise that the hon. Gentleman was to some extent provoked, but I suggest that he should keep more strictly to the subject under discussion.

Mr. Molloy: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Macclesfield spoke of the difficulties in rural schools, which can be quite different in many ways from the difficulties experienced in urban areas. Surely, therefore, instead of having blanket restrictions, the right hon. Lady should take elbow room to ensure, for example, that the cuts are not so savage in some aspects of rural education, although they might have to be applied in urban areas. The same principle should apply in easing certain urban problems which may not apply so harshly in rural education.
Until we get a change of attitude on these restrictions, the Government can rightly be charged with perhaps one of the most heinous crimes that any Government can be charged with—the savage restriction of British education, which amounts to no less than eating the seed corn—and in that respect, the right hon. Lady is making her contribution to damaging the future status of Great Britain.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. J. C. Jennings: I begin on a note of congratulation to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on the moderation of his speech and his honest attempt to make it factual. I think he made a sincere attempt to set the tone of the debate on a low key. He succeeded. We have deviated once or twice in the debate from that low key on both sides of the House, but I hope that I can proceed in a calm, sincere and honest way.
I suspect also that the hon. Gentleman, as with others, recognised that most of us have been here before, the difference being, of course, that our positions in the House were reversed, when we sat on the Opposition benches and right hon.

and hon. Members opposite were in Government. The same stories have been told from either side of the House on different occasions in similar circumstances of crisis. That is why I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), when I referred to the famous cuts made by Sir Stafford Cripps, because they illustrate the vagaries of successive Governments in post-war years. We have all been here before.

Mr. Marks: There is a difference between what happened under the last Government and what is happening now. In those days, the opposition to cuts, whether in secondary school milk or in secondary school building or anything else, always came from the then Opposition. Indeed, the present Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, was notorious for saying that the cuts were not enough.

Mr. Jennings: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making part of my speech for me and emphasising that the last Labour Government made cuts. He has no right to upbraid me for not opposing my own Government in making cuts in education or anything else, but tonight I am going to be fair to both sides. I was pointing out that we have all been here before and that today we hear repetitions of the arguments of previous years. I am trying to put the debate into proper perspective.
I wish to put the debate in historical perspective. I can remember when education was the Cinderella of the Ministries. I remember taking part in education debates when the Minister responsible for education was not a member of the Cabinet. A significant change has been made in that respect. Education is no longer the Cinderella of the Ministries or of the social services. The increase in expenditure on education illustrates that. When Sir David Eccles, now Lord Eccles, was Minister, we prided ourselves on the fact that the proportion of the gross national product spent on education had risen from 2½ per cent. to 3½ per cent. Now the figure is 7 per cent. From being the Cinderella of the Ministries, education is now a service whose expenditure exceeds even the expenditure on defence. Education has gone right up the league table.


It is against that historical background that we are debating the cuts in education. But we are also debating them against an economic background. I agree with the hon. Member for Ealing, North that this debate is taking place against a background of serious economic crisis, and no one can blink that fact. Long before the present controversy with the miners loomed on the horizon—I do not propose to link the subject of this debate with that controversy—we were, not for the first time in post-war years, under successive Governments, in an economic dilemma.
Education has always been subject to the effects of economic crises. Every time we as teachers—I declare an interest as a former headmaster and class teacher—put in for a salary increase it was inevitably against a background of economic crisis. I can remember the voluntary 5 per cent. cuts of 1931. The executive of the National Union of Teachers is worthy of commendation in recommending that the teachers should recognise the economic background to their salary application. The teachers have reserved their demand for a 25 per cent. increase for another time.
It is against that background of economic crisis that we must consider the cut of £190 million in an expenditure of £3,500 million on education, which is 7 per cent. of the gross national product.
I congratulated in his absence the hon. Member for Sparkbrook on the moderation and factual presentation of his speech and on setting so well the tone of the debate. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State because during her sojourn at the Department she has, to my knowledge, without my being privy to Government secrets—I could not expect that, could I?—put up a terrific fight from time to time on behalf of the education service against the Treasury. Time after time she has succeeded in mitigating the effects of Treasury policy. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Until today, when we are debating substantial cuts, right hon. and hon. Members opposite have never had cause to complain about what my right hon. Friend has or has not done in respect of expenditure on education. The cuts are serious. Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor

any of my hon. Friends disputes that. But, in my opinion, they are inevitable in present circumstances. As my right hon. Friend said, they are not catastrophic.
Just as education was, years ago, the Cinderella of Ministries, so primary schools have been the Cinderella of the education service. Even now my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should attempt to mitigate the effects of the cuts on the primary system. I know that she has done tremendous work in primary school rebuilding, but the primary schools, with the infant schools—and I include infants when I refer to the primary schools; it is a generic term—are the base of the education system. That is where the least damage should be done.
I therefore exhort my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider carefully the effects of the cuts on the primary system. Hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent on the secondary schools in post-war years—the expenditure has been almost to excess—to the detriment of primary schools. It is time that that ceased and the primary system felt the benefit of the impetus which my right hon. Friend has given in recent years.
There is another matter about which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and local authorities will have to be careful. I am fond of mentioning Cinderella. I have mentioned her twice, and I propose to mention her for a third time. Textbooks and stationery are the Cinderellas of most education authorities when ordering school equipment. They are the tools of the teaching trade, but they are given the lowest priority. I hope that local authorities when considering cuts will see that these items do not suffer too much.
I should like to suggest some ways in which money might be saved, or at least ways in which cuts can be accommodated to incur the least damage. First, let us from now on drop these large and expensive reorganisation schemes—indeed, let us declare a moratorium in this area of expenditure in this time of crisis. Labour Members will know exactly what I mean. Large, expensive, comprehensive schemes should be halted and the tendency to build massive schools of 2,000 pupils


should be avoided. Those schools are too big. This is a way in which a good deal of money could be saved.
We could also save money, and at the same time cash in on an educational asset, by stopping the closure of village schools. In school building the attitude of size merely for the sake of size is what seems to matter. I do not know whether we realise the contribution made by village schools in the educational fabric of our country.

Mr. Molloy: That will not help Ealing.

Mr. Jennings: There are many other towns and villages in the country than Ealing. I am talking about country areas where the village schools have a great rôle to play in our education system. They have a right to exist. My plea for the village schools ties up with other problems. We must always bear in mind the difficulties of transporting five-year-old children six or seven miles in a bus on a cold, dark winter morning and of having to bring them back again on a dark winter's night.

Mr. Molloy: I do not disagree with what the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) said about rural schools, but my view is that it would be impossible to implement that sort of policy in a great metropolis such as London or in many of the London boroughs. It could not be done in London, though I agree that it possibly could be done in some of the rural areas.

Mr. Jennings: The hon. Member for Ealing, North must not think I am daft. When I talk about villages I am not talking of London. I know that there are "villages" in London, such as Greenwich and Shepherd Market, which is a village in the West End, but I am not referring to those. I am talking of enlarged county areas.
I deplore the passing of the village school. I was headmaster of a village school, and we kept discipline in our villages without interference by the law. That sort of influence does not exist any more. This is one area in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science could take action, and it would save money and perhaps assist in other directions. I conclude by saying

that I have pleasure in supporting my right hon. Friend's amendment.

[The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS took the Chair as DEPUTY SPEAKER]

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I join with the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on his speech this afternoon. I was impressed by my hon. Friend's attiutde that we should not approach this debate from the point of view of being concerned only with figures and statistics. I agree with him that it is not merely a question of bearing in mind the cut in capital expenditure of £175 million in the Education Capital Expenditure Estimates, or the cut of £53 million in educational procurement and recurrent expenditure. We must not be wholly preoccupied with percentage figures, but must approach this debate in a practical way. In other words, we must look at the situation in human terms. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must not simply look at the cuts and compare them with what happened in 1921, 1931 or 1951, but should look behind the cuts to see what effect these economies will have on the education of our children.
I listened with interest to the speech made by the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I was somewhat surprised that she expressed only disappointment at these cuts and economies. I believe that these economies or cuts—call them what one will—are, in human terms, paltry, petty and parsimonious.
Understandably, most contributors to this debate have tended to talk against a background of concern for the interests of their constituents. This probably reinforces the approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook, and underlines the fact that we are not embarking on a statistical exercise. We must look at the practical implications of the proposed economies. I want to follow this line of argument because I think it will be most illuminating.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Hatton) for the information which he made available to me in his capacity as Chairman of the Manchester local


education authority. I shall use some of those figures in examining the context of the proposed economies which local education authorities are now being encouraged to make by the Secretary of State. Let us look at the request by the Secretary of State that local authorities should economise by 10 per cent. on recurrent expenditure in respect of services, such as meals, maintenance and other vital areas of local education expenditure.
In Manchester this percentage economy is being requested against a background in which school heating expenditure has already been estimated to increase by 50 per cent. next year. In Manchester, 200 schools are heated by means of oil fuel. Even if they get 90 per cent. of the oil which they need to keep school heating going, the increase in price of that 90 per cent. of oil will be 50 per cent. In other words, the Secretary of State is encouraging the Manchester local education authority to economise by 10 per cent. in school heating, but how on earth is it to bring about that economy of 10 per cent. against an increase in price of 50 per cent.?
Similar arguments apply to school meals. The estimated increase in Manchester's expenditure on school meals is 42 per cent. Where is the requested economy of 10 per cent. to come from in that area, when not only Manchester but every LEA in the country has increased estimates for school meals? Is it proposed to restrict even further the number of children who will be able to afford to participate in the taking of school meals?
The position is the same with essential maintenance and repairs to school buildings. It is estimated by local authorities that generally the increase will be 15 per cent. If local authorities are invited to economise by 10 per cent. and at the same time keep their spending stable against a background of increasing estimates of 15 per cent., they will be obliged to make a reduction of 25 per cent.
These are the real practical difficulties, and they underline the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook when he asked what these figures meant and said that we had to look behind the statistics and the gross figures on education presented to the nation by the Secretary of State.

The position is even more startling when one considers the proposed economy of £157 million on capital expenditure. This represents a cut of 20 per cent. on school building. Let me give one illustration from my constituency. As a result of this proposal to cut capital expenditure by 20 per cent. the Manchester LEA proposes to defer seven schools, involving an expenditure of £1 million. One of them is the Ravensbury Street Infants School in the Clayton area of Manchester. It was built at the turn of the century. At present there are about 160 children on the roll. It is in need of replacement because it suffers from raining-in. Not only does it affect the fabric and structure; on two occasions ceilings have fallen in two classrooms. The situation has been highlighted in Press reports in the Manchester newspapers. It has caused concern and anguish among parents of the children attending the school and the concern of a dedicated headmistress and staff.
When the Manchester LEA put forward the replacement of the school as a special case to the Department of Education and Science in London, everyone was delighted, and it was included in the replacement programme for 1973–74. We were looking forward to the start of the rebuilding of the school in March 1974. However, the economies which the right hon. Lady has called for mean that the rebuilding of the school is now deferred.
I was talking to the headmistress only this morning. I asked her what would be the effect of this economy and the deferring of the rebuilding of the replacement school for Ravensbury Street. I wanted to know what would be the effect of the deferment. She told me, "The reality is this. We have had ceilings repaired when they have fallen in, and we have had the roof repaired. But already new dampness is manifesting itself on ceilings in other classrooms. Who knows what will happen now that the new school is deferred yet again?"
It is not only a problem for that school, because one of the facets of reorganisation in Manchester is that the St. Cross's Church of England Infants School is to be closed down. The infants from that school are to be transferred to the Ravensbury Street school, which has


already suffered the collapse of two ceilings because of raining-in.
This is typical of the problems to which my hon. Friend the Member for Spark-brook referred. It is fair to say that youngsters in my constituency in the north-east of Manchester have already sufficient problems with which to live. They have environmental problems. The school which I have sought to highlight stands alongside a chemical works, an electricity power station and a railway. It is not the ideal environment for a school. The schools in the locality also suffer from a recurring problem of teacher staffing. Not many teachers choose to live in Clayton, in Openshaw, and generally in the north-east of Manchester. Therefore, schools in the area have an almost constant problem in attracting adequate teaching staff.
I appeal to the Secretary of State to have regard to these problems and situations when she approaches any consideration of capital expenditure on school buildings. I am mindful of the battles over the Education Estimates that she has fought with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and her Cabinet colleagues. But there is a human problem which affects children who are entitled to better than they have had so far in providing for their education needs.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. Barry Jones: I am glad to be called immediately after my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) not only because he is an effective advocate but because my previous employment persuades me that the situation which he describes in Manchester is the correct one.
I have found this a depressing debate, not because we all know the serious consequences and implications of the cuts but because everyone in education feels demoralised. My own union—the National Union of Teachers—regards the effects of these cuts as savage, and a disaster for the education service. In effect, from the Government we have had pinpricks at the property speculators and developers and swingeing blows at our schools. As one prominent educationist said,
These cuts make Florence Horsbrugh's axe look like a nail file.

We are debating some of the most injurious cuts in education expenditure for many decades, and there is no ordinary household in Britain which can escape them. The cuts are a defeat for the country as well as for the education service, and the biggest defeat is the loss of the pre-1903 school rebuilding programme. Working class constituencies and their teachers are doomed to more years of schooling in unsuitable and antiquated schools. It is the same deprivation whether in decaying city centres or remote rural areas. In this instance the Government should reconsider what they are doing in this sphere. This programme should not be abandoned. The Government should think again, if only because, as they should realise, a child is young only once. Many communities in Britain, and certainly in Wales, have waited too long for these ancient schools to be replaced. The collapse of the Government's intent on this issue is, to put it mildly, deeply disappointing.
We all know that our constituencies will be hit hard by the cuts. I shall instance only one example from my constituency. The village of Bangor-on-Dee, near Wrexham, has been transformed by the erection of 200 new houses. The pressure on the pre-1903 village school and its staff is now enormous. The school is already suffering from overcrowding and is using a temporary classroom. We had hoped to start to replace the school in 1975–76. I should like to know whether the Government are able to give any assurances on this project.
I conclude by referring to a letter that I have received from the Flint County Council's director of education regarding the Bangor-on-Dee school. He says:
The position at Bangor-on-Dee is that the present V.P. school is scheduled for replacement under the pre-1903 programme during 1975–76 starts year. This would appear to be the subject of review following the latest Government announcement for all pre-1903 schools to be suspended. Until the Authority receive clarification on this matter it is difficult for me to confirm whether or not this school will still be programmed.
I suppose that this, in essence, is the problem we are to face now. I hope that in this instance the Government will give some indication of what might happen.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): Perhaps I


can help the hon. Gentleman by saying that rather than intervene in the debate and give him the figures I should be happy to write to him about this school.

Mr. Jones: I am pleased to have that helpful intervention. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to the dilemma facing the community of Bangor-on-Dee. I suggest that on the pre-1930 programme the Government should think again.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: Most hon. Members who have spoken in the debate are concerned about education and must therefore regret tremendously the cuts that are being made. Our argument is not that the priorities for cuts within education are a problem but that education and the social services are suffering heavily at a time when there could have been cuts in private sector expenditure.

Mr. Eric Deakins: Before my hon. Friend leaves the point about regret, does he find it remarkable that there are so few backbenchers on the Government side in this important debate? In fact, I do not see one.

Mr. Marks: It is regrettable that the House is not full.
Sir William Alexander has referred to these cuts as far and away the worst in his professional lifetime, which must have included the period of the Labour Government and of the non-Cabinet member of the Conservative Government, Florence Horsbrugh.
Village schools have been mentioned. I should tell hon. Members on the Government side, if they were here, that the reason why village schools have declined so much is that the people who have gone to live in villages are not, strictly speaking, part of those villages. They are, in the main, well off and they send their children not to the village schools but to Sunningdale and other private schools.
I support the Secretary of State on one matter, which apparently her own side does not—namely, maintaining the raising of the school leaving age. I regret that any economy is used as a basis for

attacking that policy. The problem where it exists among difficult children applies not only to the fifth forms of secondary schools but throughout. It is a social problem which should be tackled.
From the facts that we are given it is extremely difficult to discover exactly what is happening about the building cuts in this year, next year and the year after. The cuts apply over three years' building programmes—1973–74, 1974–75 and 1975–76. I suspect that the cuts will be considerably more than 20 per cent.
On 16th January the Under-Secretary of State said:
 Thus, despite the pressing need for economy, the Government have preserved a building programme for each sector of the education service. Out of programmes for the remainder of 1973–74 and for 1974–75 totalling some £570 million well over £300 million has been preserved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16 January, 1974; Vol. 867, c. 608.]
That is not a 20 per cent. cut; it is more like an 85 per cent. cut. It is a difficult matter, and there may be an explanation.

Mrs. Thatcher: Mrs. Thatcher rose—

Mr. Marks: Before the right hon. Lady intervenes, I suggest that it would help if she would tell us what the programme was last year, is this year and will be next year and the year after.

Mrs. Thatcher: I agree that this is an extremely difficult matter. The figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman are in starts terms—the costs of projects that have been deferred. The expenditure cuts are in actual expenditure terms during the year.

Mr. Marks: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. I shall examine that reply later.
Local authorities will have great difficulty in making a 10 per cent. overall cut in current items with the advice that they have been getting from the Government. The £48 million saving is to be made in libraries, museums and galleries. That is difficult to maintain. They may not buy anything this year. On the whole, it is difficult to make a cut there.
The areas of expenditure that the Government have in mind are in repairs and maintenance of buildings and grounds. Many local authorities, especially in city areas, will find that extremely difficult. Schools which were to be demolished


this year and next year because new schools were to be built in their places will have to continue in being for another two, three or possibly four years. It will be impossible for the authorities concerned to cut their expenditure in that direction.
The Department of Energy has stated that schools are exempted from all heating and lighting restrictions and that heat and light should be maintained in them, yet we are asked to make heating and lighting economies in those schools. The efficient authorities which have always tried to do that will suffer most.
Another area of saving on cuts concerned books and equipment.
The Under-Secretary, in his speech on 16th January, in effect, looked both ways and said, "You should cut books, equipment, and so on, but I hope you will not." The area is so narrow that, like Sir William Alexander, I believe that the cuts here will be not 10 per cent., but 20 per cent. or 30 per cent.

Mr. William Hamilton: My hon. Friend is clearly putting questions that will not be answered. He will be aware that there is in existence a sub-committee of the Public Expenditure Committee that can demand answers in great depth from the Minister. Does he agree that that sub-committee should have as its first priority the hauling before it of the Secretary of State to demand the answers that neither he nor anyone else will get in this debate? Does he further agree that the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office ought also to be hauled before that subcommittee, so that we can have the matter fully exposed to the public?

Mr. Marks: I agree that a Select Committee can demand papers and interrogate the Minister, as we did when we had a Select Committee on Education and Science. We interrogated the Secretary of State and gave him a rough time. But the Conservative Government abolished that Select Committee as soon as they came into power.
The Government's amendment ends with the words
to reduce during 1974–75 the demands on resources for the education programme, whilst substantially preserving the Government's essential educational priorities".

What are those priorities? The direct grant schools issue has been raised and the Under-Secretary of State replied to me in an intervention but did not give any reasons for the Government's proposals on this issue. If the cuts are to take place, all schools should bear some portion. It would be reasonable for the recurrent and building expenditure on direct grant schools to be cut to the same extent as that on other schools. That would not make a substantial difference to the problems of local authorities, but, in justice, it ought to be shown to be done.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hatton: I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on the way in which I view the national situation regarding cuts in educational expenditure. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) referred to my remarks about the situation in our city, but I wish to deal with the widespread dismay now filling town halls and county halls.
Local education authorities, which will now have to deal with problems facing them because of the cuts in expenditure, have been doing their sums with increasing apprehension in the past 12 months. Estimates which they presented to the Government on the assumption that they would require certain sums to carry out their work as education authorities were reduced by order of the Government.
There was, for instance, the £14 million cut in the rate support grant. Even then the agreed forecast of expenditure was cut by £25 million, so the total was £39 million less than local education authorities regarded as being necessary to carry out their work. In addition, there was a £10 million cut in the rate support grant sum. Assuming that about £6 million of this related to education services, there is about £45 million less than the amount that local authorities said they needed in order to carry out their work in the ensuing 12 months. Much of the expenditure has been committed. It has been not only approved by the Government but urged by them upon local authorities.
There has been debate about how much money is involved in the 20 per cent. cut


in capital expenditure on the 1974–75 building programme. It has been suggested that for starts in that year a cut as high as 60 per cent. is likely. The only capital money now available is for roofs over heads. It is a tremendous disappointment to many local education authorities that at a time when improvements are vital, only roofs over heads will count.
Cost limits have been abandoned for the next six months and authorities will be submitting schemes on the basis of their tenders. We know the financial situation with building costs. I understand that the Treasury has an overall cash limit. That means that some of the roofs-over-heads schemes will not be met. Previous cost limits were scarcely enough for minimum standards.
No cuts are proposed in wages, salaries, rents or rates, so the cuts are 10 per cent. on all items. That has been estimated at more than £50 million in cuts nationally, which will amount to about 2½ per cent. of total expenditure. Miss Florence Horsbrugh asked for cuts of 5 per cent., but after local authorities did everything within their power, they achieved cuts of only 2 per cent. There-force, cuts of 2½ per cent. will be very severe.
It is expected that authorities will employ 20,000 more teachers this year in addition to replacements. But the problems of employing teachers will be difficult in the light of the cuts. What is the purpose of providing teachers if we are unable to provide the equipment they need? That is the real problem which will face local authorities in the next 12 months. We are told that there will be no cuts in ancillary helpers in schools, but rates of pay will increase and so the problem of employing the same number of ancillary helpers will be increased.
In Manchester there are nine direct grant schools, four of them non-denominational, but the cuts will be felt only in those schools for which the education committee is responsible. That is highly offensive, and I shall have great pleasure in supporting my hon. Friends in voting for the motion.

6.35 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Timothy Raison): At the opening of the debate, my right hon. Friend painted the picture as a whole and explained the way in which we had responded to the serious challenge facing us. I believe that our response has been entirely correct. I quote in evidence a comment from an editorial in the Architect's Journal, dated 9th January. Part of the editorial states:
the Department of Education has produced a carefully organised retrenchment programme designed to ensure that available resources are channelled to projects for those in greatest need and to a continuous flow of work for everyone concerned with the design and production of buildings.
That reinforces our contention that in facing up to the challenge we have acted in a rational way. My task is to take up a series of points made by hon. Members in the debate and I hope that the House will feel that what I have to say shows that we have thought carefully about this difficult situation.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), reasonably enough, raised a number of particular points. He referred to a phrase of mine in last week's Consolidated Fund debate about scrutiny of major projects. We have to be sure that these projects meet basic needs. The suspension of the improvement programme means that the occasional blurring of need and improvement, which has been the case, has to be looked at. On the other hand—and this is in answer to a point raised in our last debate—we are considering especially carefully the difficulty of projects which embody both needs and improvements.
The hon. Gentleman raised, as did a number of other hon. Members, the subject of direct grant schools. If I recall correctly, the hon. Gentleman said that direct grant schools got more when other schools got less. I should like to make the position clear. My Department does not make capital grants to direct grant schools, but only capitation grants in respect of each pupil and an additional grant in respect of each sixth former, which have in recent years been adjusted so that they continue to represent about one third of the schools' total income.


The increases in expenditure which led to increases in the grant in 1971, 1972 and 1973 were due mainly to national determined salary increases for teachers—in other words to cover staff costs which we do not want to see affected. The bulk of these increases has in fact been absorbed by increases in fees. The expenditure of each school is rigorously scrutinised by the Department, and in considering proposals for grant and fee increases the Department takes no account of any expenditure that is not strictly necessary.
The direct grant schools will be expected to make economies comparable with those now being required of the maintained schools, and the levels of grants and fees will reflect that. The economies thus effected in themselves will benefit not only parents but the local education authorities, which pay the fees of nearly 60 per cent. of pupils, and the Department, which bears the cost of fee remissions to parents of modest means. I hope I have made it clear that if and when the direct grant schools put in their applications for increases in the permitted levels of fees, we shall apply to them the standards that we apply to schools in the maintained sector.

Mr. Hattersley: That does not begin to make it clear. Will the hon. Gentleman answer a much more simple question than the brief he has just read? Our last education debate concerned the Government's decision to increase the capitation grant to direct grant schools. When the cuts were announced on 17th December, the direct grant schools said that they felt that they would escape and would go on with their increased fees. How does the hon. Gentleman justify that?

Mr. Raison: We do not propose to tell the direct grant schools that their fees are now to be reduced. I have made it clear that if and when they submit further applications we shall apply to them the yardsticks that we apply to maintained schools.
The hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Ernest G. Perry) mentioned Honeywell Road School. I have had inquiries made, but it is a complicated matter and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I undertake to write further to him rather than reply to him now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and a number of other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Sparkbrook, my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) and the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks), mentioned expenditure on school books. The hon. Member for Sparkbrook claimed that I had given a muddling or misleading answer in our last debate. In fact, what I said was perfectly clear and I can do no more than repeat it.
I have made it clear that books are included in the £480 million worth of procurement expenditure on which the 10 per cent. cuts are calculated, but within their rate support grants local education authorities are able to make a choice of how they spend their money. I simply reiterate my hope that local education authorities will do all they can not to cut back on this form of spending. Again, I do not dispute that they have a difficult job, but under our system they have a considerable measure of discretion, and I feel that I am right in asking them to treat books as generously as they possibly can.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), who, I believe, is the spokesman on education for the Liberal Party, made one or two comments to which I find it a little hard to respond, because they did not seem to be altogether clear. He said that apparently no extra building was going on, but that is not the case.

Mr. Freud: Mr. Freud indicated dissent.

Mr. Raison: I apologise if I have misquoted the hon. Gentleman, but that was certainly what I understood him to say. As my right hon. Friend has made clear, there will still be a substantial building programme—for needs, for special schools and for nursery schools.
The hon. Gentleman also made the assertion, which I have heard elsewhere, that fewer young people were going to universities because of the level of student grants. As the House knows, this matter is under consideration at the moment, but I would simply say that if the hon. Gentleman has evidence that this is so, we should be interested in seeing it. I myself have seen no form of evidence to back that assertion.


I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Michael Roberts) for stressing that in the world of teaching there are many people, including members of the National Union of Teachers—his own union—who have shown clear approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and her actions and who have also shown a rather more mature appreciation of the present energy situation as it affects education than have some Opposition Members. Of course it is a fact that the radical alteration in the energy situation in the course of the past few months is bound to have a considerable effect on public expenditure. It is also entirely reasonable, in our view, that we should lay the emphasis in our response on the particular forms of education expenditure that impose a burden on our energy resources. This is a fundamental point and I am glad that my hon. Friend was able to make it.
My hon. Friend also mentioned, as did a number of other hon. Members, the subject of the pre-1903 primary schools. It must be obvious to anybody that my right hon. Friend, who has implemented one of the most important developments in education that we have seen in postwar years, cannot be happy that for the time being we have to forgo the primary school improvement programme. The programme was necessary; it had been delayed for too long; it was a problem that the Labour Government never faced. I remind the House that, although we have to curtail or postpone it, we have already achieved a great deal with it, and that is something of which we can be proud.
I must point out that this is in the realm of deferment, and to suggest that this programme has been killed for all time is misleading. We have had to defer it, we cannot say for how long, and we regret the fact, but I have no doubt that it will come again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North said specifically that we should look at this problem as it affected the rural areas, where, he argued—and this may be contentious—the schools are rather more tumbledown that they are elsewhere. One may find tumbledown schools in any part of the country. However, his essential argument was that the programme should be put ahead of nursery

projects, or that there should exist that possibility, so that the allocations made to authorities for the expansion of nursery education, in rural areas at least, might instead be used for the replacement of some old primary schools.
I must make it clear that the Government deliberately decided that the December reductions in expenditure should not affect the nursery programme. This decision reflected our view that, desirable as it is to replace the oldest primary schools as soon as we can, the expansion of nursery education has a higher priority. I can therefore do no more than note my hon. Friend's views.
My hon. Friend also asked about the raising of the school leaving age and the possibility that we might have a further look at the present situation. He put the view, as have others, that it might be possible to devise some way in which children would be allowed to leave school earlier, in other words, before they reached 16, if it became apparent to their teachers and parents that they were not benefiting from their schooling. I am aware that this argument has been made on many sides, but I must frankly say—and here I hope that I shall have the support of the hon. Member for Gorton—that we have no plans at present to change the law.
What we are doing, and I hope that the House will consider this to be reasonable, is, in response to the request of the teaching profession, to consider the possibility of plumping for a fixed date in the summer term—it would follow shortly after the conclusion of examinations—which might help to meet part of the problem. However, I repeat that we believe that it was right to raise the school leaving age and we stand by that decision.
The hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor)—I apologise for a slip of the tongue, in calling her the hon. Gentleman, for no one can be more feminine than she is—referred to a report that appeared in The Guardian and possibly other newspapers—I am not sure—about what was said to have been happening in Berkshire, particularly the saving of £15,000 on nursery schools. As I read the report, it is a reference to current expenditure rather than capital expenditure. All the other items listed in the paragraph are recurrent expenditure


and so it seems clear that that item was, too. However, if the hon. Lady writes to me and proves me wrong, I shall acknowledge that. This report was not about nursery classes, or the building of such schools, but about the local authority's overall provision.
The hon. Lady also referred again to the question of the direct grant schools. If I understood her correctly, she said that the local authority was intending to increase grants to independent and direct grant schools. Again, local authorities pay in full the fees for places which they take up in direct grant schools. Therefore, I do not see how there can be a case of increasing the grant or the fees, as they pay the full fee already on the places that they have. I am not clear about the point which the hon. Lady was making. It seems that the only possibility here is that the option which local authorities had could have been not to take up further places in direct grant schools. But that was not what was implied in the quotation.

Miss Lestor: The hon. Gentleman said that he was confused by a Press report. I did not refer to a Press report because I do not always accept what Press reports say. Did the hon. Gentleman check any of that report with the Berkshire authority?

Mr. Raison: No, I have not had the time. But if the hon. Lady wants to take up the specific question relating to the county to which she is, happily or unhappily, about to be removed under local government reorganisation, I undertake to look into the points raised.

Mr. Freud: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Raison: Yes, but a little reluctantly.

Mr. Freud: How does the hon. Gentleman manage to read the Architects Journal so carefully but misconstrue so much that has been said on the Opposition side of the House?

Mr. Raison: It is the lot of gentlemen occupying my position to have to read all sorts of things. In doing so I am aided by the very helpful advisers with whom I am provided.
The hon. Member for Eton and Slough raised another important point about the

youth service. It is for local education authorities to decide whether their work in the youth field will have to be restricted as the result of the cuts in recurrent expenditure. I am sure that they will do their best to see that it suffers as little as possible. The reduction in the resources available to the Department for capital grant to voluntary youth service projects will, however, result in reduced allocations to local education authorities in 1974–75, but we snail try to ensure that the amount that we have available for allocation is distributed as fairly and as equitably as possible. The proposals made by authorities before the cuts were announced considerably exceeded what we shall be able to allocate. Notwithstanding the effect of the cuts on the locally determined sector, I hope that the authorities' contributions to these projects will be sufficient for the allocations to be fully used.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), like other hon. Members, referred to the raising of the school leaving age. I hope that I have answered him on that point—though possibly not to his entire satisfaction. He also asked for linked courses with colleges of further education. When looking at the way in which secondary organisation takes place in any area, it is absolutely right to bear in mind the links between the secondary organisation and colleges of further education. On my hon. Friend's further point that he hoped that we would shelve haphazard schemes of secondary reorganisation, regardless of expenditure cuts or anything else, I can tell him that my right hon. Friend keeps a very beady eye on any scheme of this sort which may be termed "haphazard". I can also bring a little gladness to my hon. Friend's heart on the question of rural primary schools. I have today written to him to inform him that my right hon. Friend has rejected a proposal to merge the Kettleshume School in which he has shown much interest.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) raised a number of points, and then considerately said that he hoped that they would be answered in correspondence rather than off the cuff. That we shall do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) is, perhaps, the


Nestor of our education debates and brings a great deal of wisdom to them. We have to a great extent "been here before" in many of the problems that we are facing. The hon. Member asked us to try to mitigate the effect of the cuts on primary schools. Nothing would please us more than to be able to find ways of doing so. We shall still be building primary schools. My hon. Friend also asked us to save money on expensive reorganisation schemes. Again, we shall take his comments to heart.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) mentioned the effect of increased oil prices on school heating. It is important to make clear that this point will fall to be considered under the normal rate support grant provision for taking into account increases in costs and prices. I should like to add something about which the hon. Member was not quite sure—that school meals, staff and food costs are not part of procurement expenditure, on which the 10 per cent. cut is falling.
The hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones) made an eloquent plea regarding the pre-1903 schools. As I have already said, I sympathise with that point. We shall look at the hon. Gentleman's specific difficulties. But I remind him that what we are talking about is deferment rather than abandonment.
I would not expect to be able to satisfy the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton)—goodness knows who could do that—but I hope that the House will recognise that I have tried to deal with the many important points that have been raised.
I do not believe that the Opposition come out of the debate with very much credit. The right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), according to last Saturday's edition of The Times, said that the motto for an incoming Labour Government would be austerity and that

"many of our expectations will be rudely disappointed".

But what is the Opposition's contribution to this debate on educational expenditure? What serious contribution have they made? They have recently come up with a party policy which is devoted to a number of forms of expansion—extending nursery provision, improving secondary schools, imposing universal comprehensives, and so on. These are all very expensive proposals, leaving entirely on one side the famous proposal of the hon. Member for Sparkbrook of the abolition of the independent sector.

The Opposition know perfectly well that if by any appalling mischance they found themselves again in the seat of Government, they would have to face up to a very difficult economic situation, produced by an energy crisis in which the oil and coal situations played a dominating part. Therefore, the response of the Opposition has been fundamentally of a frivolous nature. I do not mean that Labour Members do not in many cases care desperately about the education service in their areas, just as my hon. Friends care about it, but unless Labour Members are capable of approaching this situation in a serious way rather than simply condemning every attempt to look again at the situation they will be completely incapable of commanding the credibility and respect of this country.

I say once more that there is no question at all but that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has applied to what we all admit is a difficult situation a rational set of proposals which have the fundamental, essential and desirable characteristic that whatever incidentals we have to cut back we preserve the fundamentals of our education service. It is for that reason that I have every confidence in asking the House to support the Government's amendment and reject the Opposition's motion.

Question put. That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 269.

Division No. 39.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Benyon, W.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Berry, Hn. Anthony


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Biffen, John


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Biggs-Davison, John


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Batsford, Brian
Blaker, Peter


Astor, John
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Bell, Ronald
Body, Richard


Awdry, Daniel
Bennett. Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Boscawen, Hn. Robert




Bossom, Sir Clive
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
More, Jasper


Bowden, Andrew
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Bray, Ronald
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Morrison, Charles


Brewis, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mudd, David


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Neave, Airey


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Haselhurst, Alan
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hastings, Stephen
Nott, John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Havers, Sir Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Buck, Antony
Hay, John
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hayhoe, Barney
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Burden, F. A.
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Osborn, John


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hicks, Robert
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray & Naire)
Higgins, Terence L.
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Carlisle, Mark
Hiley, Joseph
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Parkinson, Cecil


Carr. Sir Robert
Hill, S. James A. (Southampton, Test)
Peel, Sir John


Channon, Paul
Holland, Philip
Percival, Ian


Chapman, Sydney
Holt, Miss Mary
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hordern, Peter
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hornby, Richard
Pink, R. Bonner


Churchill, W. S.
Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Pounder, Rafton


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cockeram, Eric
Hunt, John
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Coombs, Derek
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Cooper, A. E.
Iremonger, T. L.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Cordle, John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Raison, Timothy


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
James, David
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Cormack, Patrick
Jenkln, Rt. Hn. Patrick (Woodford)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Costain, A. P.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Redmond, Robert


Critchley, Julian
Jessel, Toby
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Crouch, David
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Crowder, F. P.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Jopling, Michael
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Dean, Paul
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Ridsdale, Julian


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kershaw, Anthony
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kimball, Marcus
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Dixon, Piers
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Drayson, G. B.
Kinsey, J. R.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kirk, Peter
Rost, Peter


Dykes, Hugh
Kitson, Timothy
Royle, Anthony


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Russell, Sir Ronald


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knox, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lamont, Norman
Sainsbury, Timothy


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne. N.)
Lane, David
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Emery, Peter
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Scott, Nicholas


Eyre, Reginald
Le Marchant, Spencer
Scott-Hopkins, James


Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Fell, Anthony
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'field)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Shersby, Michael


Fidler, Michael
Longden, sir Gilbert
Simeons, charles


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Loveridge, John
Sinclair, Sir George


Fisher, Sir Nigel (Surbiton)

Skeet, T. H. H.


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)
Luce, R. N.
Smith, Dudley (W' wick & L'mington)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Soref, Harold


Fookes, Miss Janet
MacArthur, Ian
Speed, Keith


Fortescue, Tim
McCrindle, R. A.
Spence John


Foster, Sir John
McLaren, Martin
Sporat, lain


Fowler, Norman
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stainton, Keith


Fox, Marcus
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Stokes, John


Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Madel, David
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Gardner, Edward
Maginnis, John E.
Sutcliffe, John


Gibson-Watt, David
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Tapsell Peter


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Maude, Angus
Tebbit, Norman


Goodhart, Philip
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Temple, John M.


Goodhew, Victor
Mawby, Ray
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Gorst, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Gray, Hamish
Miscampbell, Norman
Trew Peter


Green, Alan
Michell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Grieve, Percy
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Moate, Roger
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Grylls, Michael
Molyneaux, James
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Money, Ernle
Vickers, Dame Joan


Gurden, Harold
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Waddington, David


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Monro, Hector
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hall, Sir John (Wycombe)
Montgomery, Fergus
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)







Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Wiggin, Jerry
Worsley, Sir Marcus


Walters, Dennis
Wilkinson, John
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Ward, Dame Irene
Winterton, Nicholas
Younger, Hn. George


Warren, Kenneth
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick



Weatherill. Bernard
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Wells, John (Maidstone)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Mr. Walter Clegg and


White, Roger (Gravesend)
Woodnutt, Mark
Mr. Paul Hawkins.


Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William






NOES


Abse, Leo
Ellis, Tom
Lipton, Marcus


Albu, Austen
English, Michael
Loughlin, Charles


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Evans, Fred
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Faulds, Andrew
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
McBride, Neil


Ashley, Jack
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
McCartney, Hugh


Ashton, Joe
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McElhone, Frank


Atkinson, Norman
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McGuire, Michael


Bagier, Gordon, A. T.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Machin, George


Barnes, Michael
Foot, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ford, Ben
Mackie, John


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Forrester, John
Maclennan, Robert


Baxter, William
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Beaney, Alan
Freeson, Reginald
McNamara, J, Kevin


Beith, A. J.
Freud, Clement
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Galpern, Sir Myer
Marks, Kenneth


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Garrett, W. E.
Marquand, David


Bidwell, Sydney
Gilbert, Dr. John
Marsden, F.


Bishop, E. S.
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Golding, John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mayhew, Christopher


Booth, Albert
Gourlay, Harry
Meacher, Michael


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Grant John D. (Islington, E.)
Mendelson, John


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mikardo, Ian


Bradley, Tom
Hamilton, James (Brightside)
Millan, Bruce


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)
Hamling, William
Milne, Edward


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Molloy, William


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Hardy Peter
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Buchan, Norman
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hattersley, Roy
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Campbell. I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hatton, F.
Murray Ronald King


Cant, R. B.
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Oakes, Gordon


Carmichael, Neil
Heffer, Eric S.
O'Halloran Michael


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hooson, Emlyn
O' Halloran, Michael


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Horam, John
O' Malley, Brian


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oram, Bert


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Huckfield, Leslie
Orbach, Maurice


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Orme, Stanley


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Oswald, Thomas


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth Sutton)


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Padley, Walter


Conlan, Bernard
Hunter, Adam
Palmer, Arthur


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Janner, Greville
Pardoe John


Cronin, John
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pavitt, Laurie


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
John, Brynmor
Pendry, Tom


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Prescott, John


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Price William (Rugby)


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, william (Rugby)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jones. Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Probert Arthur


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Radice Giles


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kaufman, Gerald
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Deakins, Eric
Kelley, Richard
Rhodes, Geoffrey


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kerr, Russell
Richard, Ivor


Delargy, Hugh
Kinnock, Neil
Robert, Albert (Normanton)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lambie, David
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dempsey, James
Lamborn, Harry
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Doig, Peter
Lamond, James
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Brc n&R dnor)




Rodgers, William E. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Dormand, J. D.
Latham, Arthur
Roper, John


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lawson, George
Ross Rt. Hn. William (Kifmarnock)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Leadbitter, Ted
Rowlands, Ted


Driberg, Tom
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Sandelson, Neville


Duffy, A. E. P.
Leonard, Dick
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Dunnett, Jack
Lestor, Miss Joan
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Eadie, Alex
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton. N. E.)


Edelman, Maurice
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)







Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Sillars, James
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Silverman, Julius
Tinn, James
Whitehead, Phillip


Skinner, Dennis
Tomney, Frank
Whitlock, William


Small, William
Tope, Graham
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Torney, Tom
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Spriggs, Leslie
Tuck, Raphael
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Stallard, A. W.
Urwin, T. W.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Varley, Eric G.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wainwright, Edwin
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Stott, Roger
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Woof, Robert


Strang, Gavin
Wallace, George



Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Watkins, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Weitzman, David
Mr. James A. Dunn and


Swain, Thomas
Wellbeloved, James
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)

Question accordingly agreed to.

It being after Seven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, ursuant to the Order this day, to put the Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings on the Motion.

Main Question, as amended, put:

The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 270

Division No. 40.]
AYES
[7.13 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Costain, A. P.
Gurden, Harold


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Critchley, Julian
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Crouch, David
Hall, Sir John (Wycombe)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Crowder, F. P.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Astor, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Atkins, Humphrey
d Avigdor-Goldsmid. Maj.-Gen. Jack
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Awdry, Daniel
Dean, Paul
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Haselhurst, Alan


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Dixon, Piers
Hastings, Stephen


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Havers, Sir Michael


Batsford, Brian
Drayson, G. B.
Hay, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hayhoe, Barney


Bell, Ronald
Dykes, Hugh
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Hicks, Robert


Benyon, W.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Higglns, Terence L.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hiley, Joseph


Biffen, John
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Emery, Peter
Hill, S. James A. (Southampton, Test)


Blaker, Peter
Eyre, Reginald
Holland, Philip


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Farr, John
Holt, Miss Mary


Body, Richard
Fell, Anthony
Hordern, Peter


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hornby, Richard


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fidler, Michael
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Bowden, Andrew
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Bray, Ronald
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Brewis, John
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)
Hunt, John


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Iremonger, T. L.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fortescue, Tim
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Foster, Sir John
James, David


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Fowler, Norman
Jenkin, Rt. Hn. Patrick (Woodford)


Buck, Antony
Fox, Marcus
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford&Stone)
Jessel, Toby


Burden, F. A.
Fry, Peter
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray & Nairn)

Jopling, Michael


Carlisle, Mark
Gardner, Edward
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gibson-Watt, David
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Cary, Sir Robert
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Channon, Paul
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kershaw, Anthony


Chapman, Sydney
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Kimball, Marcus


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Goodhart, Philip
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Goodhew, Victor
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Churchill, W. S.
Gorst, John
Kinsey, J. R,


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Gower, Raymond
Kirk, Peter


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow. C.)
Kitson, Timothy


Cockeram, Eric
Gray, Hamish
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Coombs, Derek
Green, Alan
Knox, David


Cooper, A. E.
Grieve, Percy
Lamont, Norman


Cordle, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Lane, David


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Grylls, Michael
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Cormack, Patrick
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Le Marchant, Spencer




Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Sproat, lain


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'fleld)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stainton, Keith


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Parkinson, Cecil
Stanbrook, Ivor


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Peel, Sir John
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Loveridge, John
Percival, Ian
Stokes, John


Luce, R. N.
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Sutcliffe, John


MacArthur, Ian
Pink, R. Bonner
Tapsell, Peter


McCrindle, R. A.
Pounder, Rafton
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


McLaren, Martin
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tebbit, Norman


Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurlce (Farnham)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Temple, John M.


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Quennell. Miss J. M.
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Madel, David
Raison, Timothy
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Maginnis, John E.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Trew, Peter


Marten, Neil
Redmond, Robert
Tugendhat, Christopher


Mather, Carol
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Maude, Angus
Rees, Peter (Dover)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Mawby, Ray
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Vickers, Dame Joan


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Waddington, David



Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ridsdale, Julian
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Miscampbell, Norman
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Walters, Dennis


Michell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Ward, Dame Irene


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Warren, Kenneth


Moate, Roger
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Weatherill, Bernard


Molyneaux, James
Rost, Peter
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Money, Ernle
Royle, Anthony
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Russell, Sir Ronald
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Monro, Hector
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Montgomery, Fergus
Sainsbury, Timothy
Wilkinson, John


More, Jasper
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Winterton, Nicholas


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Scott, Nicholas
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Morrison, Charles
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Mudd, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Woodhouse. Hn. Christopher


Neave, Airey
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Woodnutt, Mark


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Shersby, Michael
Worsley, Marcus


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Simeons, Charles
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Nott, John
Sinclair, Sir George
Younger, Hn. George


Onslow, Cranley
Skeet, T. H. H.



Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Soref, Harold
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Osborn, John
Speed, Keith
Mr. Paul Hawkins


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Spence, John





NOES


Abse Leo
Cant, R. B.
Dunnett, Jack


Albu, Austen
Carmichael, Neil
Eadie, Alex


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'n, Northfield)
Edelman, Maurice


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Armstrong, Ernest
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Ellis, Tom


Ashley, Jack
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
English, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Evans, Fred


Atkinson, Norman
Cohen, Stanley
Faulds, Andrew


Bagier, Gordon, A. T.
Coleman, Donald
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.


Barnes, Michael
Concannon, J. D.
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Conlan, Bernard
Filch, Alan (Wigan)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Fletcher, Raymond (likeston)


Baxter, William
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Beaney, Alan
Cronin, John
Foot, Michael


Beith, A. J.
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Ford, Ben


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Forrester, John


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Bidwell, Sydney
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Freeson, Reginald


Bishop, E. S.
Dalyell, Tarn
Freud, Clement


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Galpern, Sir Myer


Boardman. H. (Leigh)
Davidson, Arthur
Garrptt, W. F.


Booth, Albert
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Gilbert Dr. John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Davles, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Golding, John


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C


Bradley. Tom
Deakins, Eric
Gourlay, Harry


Broughton, Sir Alfred
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne. W.)
Delargy, Hugh
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Brown, Ronald (Shoredltch S F'bury)
Dempsey, James
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Buchan, Norman
Doig, Peter
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'Surn)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire. E.)



Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hamling, William


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Driberg. Tom
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire. W)
Duffy, A. E. P
Hardy, Peter







Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McNamara, J, Kevin
Rowlands, Ted


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfleld, E.)
Sandelson, Neville


Hattersley, Roy
Marks, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Halton, F.
Marquand, David
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Marsden, F.
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Heffer, Eric S.
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Hooson, Emlyn
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Horam, John
Mayhew, Christopher
Silkln, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Meacher, Michael
Sillars, James


Huckfield, Leslie
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Silverman, Julius


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mendelson, John
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mikardo, Ian
Small, William


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Millan, Bruce
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Spriggs, Leslie


Hunter, Adam
Milne, Edward
Stallard, A. W.


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Molloy, William
Stewart, Donald (Western Isies)


Janner, Greville
Morgan, Elyslan (Cardiganshire)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Stott, Roger


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Strang, Gavin


John, Brynmor
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Murray, Ronald King
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Oakes, Gordon
Swain, Thomas


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
O'Malley, Brian
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Jones. Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Oram, Bert
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Orbach, Maurice
Tinn, James


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Orme, Stanley
Tomney, Frank


Kaufman, Gerald
Oswald, Thomas
Tope, Graham


Kelley, Richard
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Torney, Tom


Kerr, Russell
Padley, Walter
Tuck, Raphael


Kinnock, Neil
Palmer, Arthur
Urwin, T. W.


Lambie, David
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Varley, Eric G.


Lamborn, Harry
Pardoe, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Lamond, James
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Latham, Arthur
Pavitt, Laurie
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lawson, George
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wallace, George


Leadbitter, Ted
Pendry, Tom
Watkins, David


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Perry, Ernest G.
Weitzman, David


Leonard, Dick
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Wellbeloved, James


Lestor, Miss Joan
Prescott, John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Price, William (Rugby)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Probert, Arthur
Whitehead, Phillip


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Radice, Giles
Whitlock, William


Lipton, Marcus
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Loughlin, Charles
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Lyons. Edward (Bradford, E.)
Richard, Ivor
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


McBride, Nell
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


McCartney, Hugh
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


McElhone, Frank
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


McGuire, Michael
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&R'dnor)
Woof, Robert


Machin, George
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)



Mackenzie, Gregor
Roper, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Mackie, John
Rose, Paul B.
Mr. James A. Dunn and


Maclennan, Robert
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Mr. Joseph Harper.


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House endorses the Government's decision for the reasons given in the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 17th December to reduce during 1974–75 the demands on resources for the education programme, whilst substantially preserving the Government's essential educational priorities.

HEALTH AND WELFARE (EXPENDITURE)

7.25 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the savage cuts in the much needed expenditure on the Health Service and the social services; and demands that the proper priority be given to these services.
In the debate on 11th December 1973 on the reorganisation of the National Health Service, I said that I wished the Press would take more notice of the matters affecting the National Health Service. I was glad to see that in this month's report on the future of broadcasting the Social Morality Council criticised the lack of attention given to those matters both by the BBC and by the Independent Broadcasting Authority. I was also glad to see that the point was taken up by the Lancet in its issue of 26th January 1974.
In the previous debate I pointed out that the National Health Service was in a state of administrative chaos. The situation today is no better than it was last December. There are still large gaps in the appointment of area health authority officers. Many district community physicians will not have been appointed by 31st March 1974, which is, as the House knows, the deadline.
All the evidence in the service suggests decreasing morale and increasing discontent. I mention this not because it is the subject of today's debate but because, concurrently with the failure of the National Health Service reorganisation have come the cuts in capital expenditure amounting to no less than 20 per cent. and a further £42 million in supplies and services.
In passing, we shall have to see how public health generally is affected by the environmental cuts, such as those in refuse and clean air facilities, since these, too, affect the general health and welfare of the community.
I start with a description of the situation in our hospitals, which will face a large series of cuts by reason of the capital expenditure cuts which have been announced. I should like to quote something of what the situation is like now. An article in the Nursing Times for 24th January 1974, which the Secretary of State has probably seen, says

The hospital supply situation, which has been gradually deteriorating in the past few months, is now near crisis point. Surgical dressings, disposables, cotton and plastic items of all kinds are in increasingly short supply".
The article goes on to say that this situation has lasted for the past six months.
The same issue of the Nursing Times highlights the increase in agency nurses. It quotes, for example, Poplar Hospital, which now has 30 per cent. agency nursing staff. The article goes on:
The dilemma about maintaining standards is one which faces many hospitals throughout the country which have to close wards because of staffing problems".
In the light of this I made inquiries at one teaching hospital and found that this also was the case there. In the six months which ended in April 1973 there were 43 staff vacancies. Six months later that figure had risen to 101. I asked the reason, and it was given as low pay and the high rents staff had to pay outside the hospital and the fact that there was no possibility of residential accommodation within the hospital grounds.
Inevitably, I have visited a number of hospitals during the past 12 months and I find much the same situation over and over again—lack of staff, lack of accommodation for staff at rents or prices which they can afford, and lack of residential accommodation for them. It is in the light of all this that one has to judge the cuts that are being proposed. We have the evidence of the British Medical Journal as recently as 12th January of what this will mean. It takes the view that, whatever the Department believes, there will be no new hospital building this year. The Secretary of State might care to look at the British Medical Journal. It says also that there will be savage cuts in maintenance.
I know that the Secretary of State in the high summer of last year shocked the Daily Mail by describing himself as the biggest slum landlord in the country when he described hospitals. I know what he meant. Having seen them, we have exactly the same feelings. But what is the future of our hospital service going to be with these cuts in view and these staff difficulties and shortages in mind? We shall obviously have a delay in building and in obtaining staff and an increase in waiting lists. What I fear most of all is that we shall have what we have had in so many other aspects of Government policy—a two-nation service.
I should like to tell the House about an advertisement which appeared on 18th January this year in The Times. The advertisement called upon people to form a BUPA staff group. The words in the advertisement were
To provide key men with private medical care.
A week later, on 23rd January 1974, there was an advertisement in the Financial Times. This related to another private patients' plan. It was headlined:
Your little girl has to go into hospital. You've been told she has to wait. You're worried. This situation can be avoided. If you were a subscriber to Private Patients' Plan your little girl would go straight into a private room.
Nobody who read The Lancet in its edition of 19th January 1974 could have failed to be moved by the catalogue of frightening diseases to which miners are prone by virtue of their occupation. I doubt whether the miners or, indeed, the 800,000 people who work in the National Health Service are the key men referred to in the advertisement which I have quoted. Not for them or their little girls is there a possibility of queue jumping straight into a private room. There we have it—unparalleled growth of agency nursing, unparalleled growth of private schemes for queue jumping. The Secretary of State now has the distinction of bringing back, after 200 years, leeches into the medical service.
I have talked about the hospitals. I want to mention the community aspect. In yesterday's Sunday Express, which I hope the Secretary of State read with considerable pleasure, as I did, there was a suggestion that he was soon to become Chancellor of the Exchequer and to move into No. 11. Of course, if the Sunday Express is right, this debate might very well herald his swan song. The right hon. Gentleman laughs. I am bound to say that it would do the health service no harm, and, so far as the Exchequer is concerned, it could not do worse.
I thought the proper gift to make to the Secretary of State at this moment, if this is to be his swan song, would be to remind him of the wise words he uttered in his first speech to the House as Secretary of State for Social Services on 13th July 1970. This is what he said:
Many people are in hospital who should be treated at home or by the local authority

services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July 1970; Vol. 803, c. 1175.]
I absolutely agree, and I trust that he believes that today.
I should like to refer to another speech, this time by one of his hon. Friends, the Member for the Wrekin (Dr. Trafford) on 11th December last, reported at c. 236 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. It was a very thought-provoking speech. The hon. Gentleman, since he criticised me quite a bit, will not expect me to agree with him on every point, but he made a point of extreme interest and I have thought a good deal about it. He mentioned coronary care. He mentioned the case of an ambulance crew which, I think, answered 1,000 calls, as a net result of which there were four cases of possible saving in terms of mortality.
These were very impressive figures and it was an impressive argument. The hon. Gentleman did not make a definite statement; he merely speculated on whether we were using our resources wisely. The possible saving in terms of mortality in these four cases has been achieved at enormous cost, compared with the provision for all the other interests which press upon us. He mentioned specifically homes for the elderly, treatment of the limbless and the care of arthritic sufferers. He is following and, indeed, intensifying the Mather study reported in the British Medical Journal in 1971. I do not know that it made a definite point, but it seemed to indicate that for many coronary patients proper home care was at least as effective as the best possible treatment. So treatment in the home or in the community is the front line in medical service, or ought to be, in our community.
That was the way in which the Secretary of State first considered the future when he took office in 1970. He started by telling us that he was impressed by and interested in the development of health centres. It is perhaps worth while dealing with the history of the health centres. During the 13 years of Conservative Government up to 1964 we built 14 health centres, and then when Mr. Kenneth Robinson became the Minister of Health he inaugurated a push which resulted in a further 318 built or building by the time we left office in 1970. The number today is 492. Therefore, about 150 have been built during the period of office of


the Conservative Government. The Secretary of State will find that my figures are correct, because in the total figure are included a small number—10, I think—built under the first Labour Government; 150 have been built under this Government.
However, the planning of a health centre is not done overnight. It can take many years. Four or five years is the usual period from the first idea to the final construction. What is happening at this moment is a total full stop on the building of health centres. The British Medical Journal of 18th August 1973 said:
Organising a move to a health centre takes time, certainly many months and sometimes several years…Such a sudden policy reversal "—
it was referring to the present Government's change of policy—
is bound to make doctors more cautious about entering into negotiations for health centres in future.
Obviously, this must be so because if they are once disappointed their feelings about trying it again, particularly in view of the time involved, are bound to dictate their attitude. The article went on:
Furthermore this damage to the profession's confidence comes at a time when experience suggests that health centres are an asset to patients and doctors without so far compromising the latters' professional freedom.
These are very strong words, and they come from a very authoritative source. They cannot be disregarded. But we can all see in our own constituencies the effect of the Government cuts. Take, for example, my own borough of Lewisham. There are eight social service buildings, I am informed, which are in danger of being refused permission to continue. Of these, there are four health centres, two homes for the elderly and one day centre for the deaf. I suppose every hon. Member, if he cares to consult his own borough, will find that similar worries and difficulties are occurring in his own area.
What should we do about it? In our motion, we say that under this Government the priorities are wrong. How do we put priorities right? I began by saying that I thought that the Press, the BBC and the Independent Broadcasting Authority ought to keep a watch on our

health and welfare services and on our debates in Parliament. I believe that they should, but I believe also that we may be equally guilty. Normally, I suppose, we have two or three debates in a year on this and allied subjects. What is needed is a continual watch upon the situation. I suggest, therefore, that a specialist committee should be set up for health and welfare matters, a committee which would keep an ongoing watch on the whole service. Embarrassing as it might be to Secretaries of State of either party, it would be an admirable move for the future of our health services.
More than that, we should use our resources in the best possible way. I cannot help feeling that a party which prefers building Maplin and the Channel Tunnel, especially in the middle of an energy crisis, has its priorities wrong.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: We are not building them now.

Mr. Silkin: I am delighted to hear it, and it is about time we devoted some of those resources where they are most needed. A party which cuts down on housing and house building, and a party which neglects community services has its priorities wrong. Such a party in government is ruining the health and welfare services, and, once ruined, those services are difficult to restore.
There is another essential lacking in the service at present. We need, above all, a health service in which the voice of the patient is pre-eminent. After all, the patient is our concern. For this reason, we on this side have constantly advocated that there should be a democratic health service. We have seen what the effect of the managerial approach has been.
Earlier in my speech I spoke of administrative chaos. I could have gone much further, but it did not seem to me that we were today debating the reorganisation of the health service. But we shall return to it. We shall have to. The administrative chaos to which I have referred has come from a managerial approach, whereas a democratic approach, whereby the patients themselves are the ones concerned, whose word and advice is taken, will give the sort of service that we need.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by a "democratic" service? Does he mean that patients will man the offices and decide policy? It is a silly emotive word to use in this debate. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by it?

Mr. Silkin: For a reasonable fee—a contribution to the funds of the Labour Party—I am willing to give the hon. Gentleman a small seminar when he and I have a little more time. The word "democratic" means rule of the people, and the rule of the people, in our view, is best expressed by dealing with the health services through our local government structure. Incidentally, if the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to be present at previous health service debates or had studied the Committee proceedings on the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill, he might have informed himself rather better.
The third need—I regard this as vital today—is for a service in which the staff really count for something. The National Health Service has 800,000 employees. I include the doctors, of course, because they need to be consulted and to have their advice taken and tested. But, apart from doctors, I mean nurses, and not only hospital nurses but district nurses and health visitors. I mean therapists, radiographers, dieticians, technicians, office staff, transport staff, porters, the people who prepare the food, and, in the community, the home helps.
Those are the people who maintain the fabric of essential services—in other words, all those whom a former editor of the Lancet happily described as the "greater medical profession". These are the people to whom an efficient and responsible Secretary of State could appeal, who could work with him to produce the sort of health service that we need and restore to it the priority which it deserves.
We deplore the state of our health and welfare services at this time, for the reasons which I have given, and we shall not rest until they have been given the priority and the resources which their importance demands.

7.45 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to

move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof
endorses the Government's decision for the reasons given in the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 17th December to reduce during 1974–75 the demands on resources for the health and personal social services programme, without altering the substance of that programme.
Although, in answer to the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin), I shall be able to show figures substantially better, on any fair basis of comparison, during the 3½ years of Tory Government as compared with Labour, this debate brings me no joy. It is a disappointment to me to have to preside over a reduced rate of improvement in the health and personal social services. That it is a disappointment to me is relatively unimportant, but it is also a disappointment to the devoted staffs of the National Health Service—the "greater medical profession" to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. It is a disappointment to the devoted staffs working in the local authority and voluntary sectors of our personal social services. More important still, it is a disappointment to the patients and to those families which are often bearing the burden of care at home without enough support.
I do not need the right hon. Gentleman to spell out the reasons why this country needs a better, more modern, and more systematic National Health Service and personal social services. Reason not the need, say I to the right hon. Gentleman. He is perfectly right to focus the attention of the House on the reduced rate of improvement which is the result of the Government's decision. Of course, one of the few happy advantages of an Opposition is that whatever the Government had decided to do in the face of an energy crisis—they agree that something had to be done—they would perfectly legitimately have initiated a debate and criticised. That is their right. There is to be a debate tomorrow on the wider issues lying behind the decision of the Chancellor and the Government upon where the economies for the ensuing year should be made. In passing, however, I must remind the House, after the right hon. Gentleman's relatively light-hearted references to Maplin and the Channel Tunnel as affording possible ways for the Government to economise in the current


year, that no large spending is planned on either of those projects during 1974, and economies on them would not have produced the sort of scale of savings which the Opposition in their statements seem to regard as necessary.
Also, before I come to the main subject of the debate, I must correct one other misapprehension on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, who is normally so precise in his facts, although not, in my view, in his judgments. The right hon. Gentleman said that the district community physicians under the reorganised health service would not all be appointed by the end of March. It is my information that the crucial interviews are going on now and that all the district community physician posts will be filled. There may be one or two which, for personal reasons, will not, but in general all will be filled by the due date.
I shall go through the capital and revenue prospects for the National Health Service and the local authority personal social services in the light of the Chancellor's announcement, and by that means I shall answer systematically the argument put by the right hon. Gentleman.
I take first, the capital position in the National Health Service. Even after the reduced provision for this coming financial year, we shall be spending on National Health Service capital account—that is, building, new building, upgrading and improvements—significantly more in real terms, in comparable figures, than was spent by Labour in Labour's last full year of office. That is not a great comfort in itself. So we should. Over the last three years we have spent, on average, in real terms, 30 per cent. more each year than the average of Labour's last three years, and from that high rate of increased expenditure we now come down to a disappointingly lower rate: one which is lower than we would wish but still higher than Labour's last spending figure
We are discussing with the regions how the impact of this reduced capital expenditure will be spread. The House will note that we put a lot of extra money in to raise the level of the neglected sectors—mental illness, mental handicap and the geriatric services. We

still intend to protect these services so far as is practicable in the allocation of the money available.
We also intend to protect one or two other services which particularly need encouraging—the cancer services, the rehabilitation services and the services for the younger chronic sick. We do not anticipate having to interrupt the expenditure on any work now in progress. However, the result of the lower than hoped for level of capital available will mean that there will be fewer new starts in the next financial year.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether provision for safety against fire will be affected by the cuts? Many of the old hospitals lack fire safety provision and more money is essential for it and should be brought forward without cuts in the immediate future.

Sir K, Joseph: The hon. Lady is on to an excellent point. That is also one of the areas of expenditure that we shall be sheltering so far as we can.
I turn now to the question of health centres, on which I think the right hon. Member for Deptford was a little wrong. It is true that often a building the size of the health centre is several years in gestation for all sorts of understandable reasons. We inherited 213 when we came to office. During Labour's term of office 167 of them were opened.

Mr. John Silkin: I am sure that the Secretary of State will allow me to correct his figures—I said "built or building". If he cares to look at the document he commended in his first speech he will find the figures there and they are correct.

Sir K. Joseph: I shall be perfectly fair about this. Labour had opened 167, some no doubt due to initiatives they had inherited. Now there are 524 in action of which 254 have been opened in the last three and a half years, admittedly many of them inherited from a Labour initiative. More than 181 re being built, and even with the lower amount of capital available we hope to start another 72 during the next financial year. Therefore, the momentum which both parties welcome is being solidly maintained.


I turn to the National Health Service revenue position. Here the only abatement of spending is 10 per cent. on purchases other than food, drugs and related supplies. Of course, a number of shortages to which the right hon. Member for Deptford referred are due to the energy position and to short-time working in the firms concerned. In spite of the lower rate of money available there will be a £60 million increase in real terms during 1974–75 in National Health Service revenue over the current financial year. The revenue available for the NHS has risen sharply since we came to office. It is now running at 15 per cent. more in real terms than 1970–71 and the evidence of this enormous increase of £300 million more in real terms per annum as a base for next year is the startling increase in staff.
During Labour's term of office health service staff increased by 2½ per cent. on average a year. During our term of office the staff has increased on average by 4½ per cent. a year. Certainly there are problems. Agency nurses worry us all. We have taken an initiative which we hope will reduce the problem, but it is true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that the difficulty with housing makes it very difficult to recruit nurses in some of the London hospitals.
We also need more staff. There are more in-patients, out-patients and day patients. Treatment is more intensive, but mercifully we are increasing the staff, though never fast enough. During our period in office the number of hospital medical staff has risen by over 15 per cent. There are 18 per cent. more consultants; 20 per cent. more senior registrars; 4 per cent. more registrars; 22 per cent. more senior house officers and house officers; 12½ per cent. more in hospital nursing and midwifery; 14 per cent. more professional and technical staff; 4 per cent. more ancillary staff; 4½ per cent. more GPs and 14 per cent. more local authority nurses and mid-wives. The intake of medical students has gone up by 23 per cent.
These figures still leave us short, but they are substantially more than when we came to office, and the figures have increased at a far faster rate than during Labour's term of office.

Mr. John Silkin: So they should.

Sir K. Joseph: The right hon. Gentleman says that they should, but the Labour Party constantly seeks to pose as the only champion of the National Health Service. It is fair to remind the House and the country that, judged by performance, we have done much better than Labour. Of course, we should like to do better still.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: Since, as we are no doubt agreed, rehabilitation and assessment centres are aimed at keeping people out of hospital in their own homes and giving them what they need, is the Secretary of State planning to spend more on them, or less? We should be spending a whole lot more.

Sir K. Joseph: I said that rehabilitation was one of the services that we were going to shelter, and that is true of comprehensive assessment centres.
I turn to local authority personal social service capital. These are areas—old people's homes, homes for the mentally handicapped, hostels for the mentally ill, day centres and training centres—that have been sorely neglected by all Governments in the past. We have an increase in the numbers of the elderly, a new awareness of the needs of the disabled and the mentally ill and mentally handicapped, and the impact of legislation such as the Seebohm legislation, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act and the Health Services and Public Health Act. In the light of this the Government have rejoiced to be able to allocate much more money for local authority personal social service capital than the figures we inherited. The 20 per cent. cut in personal social service capital will reduce our spending to a figure still far above that, in real terms, which we inherited, but will be a great blow to those who regarded our original allocation—much increased though it has been—as far too little.
The projects we shall have to defer were conceived under pressure from the local interests, from the families of the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped, under pressure from the local pressure groups—and good luck to them—under pressure from the local authorities, and under pressure from the Government. It is all the more disappointing that some of them will have to be deferred. Yet the fact remains that the


capital allocations in real terms, the capital for the personal social services, will be 40 per cent. higher next year than in Labour's last year of office. That surely is welcome to both sides of the House. We shall be deciding the reduced allocation as soon as possible. But even after the reduced allocation, the number of places we expect to be provided in 1974–75 by the local authorities will be at a record level except for one year—last year.
We hope for the provision of no fewer than 10,000 places—5,000 residential and 5,000 day places—which will enable a significant improvement for the elderly, the mentally handicapped, the mentally ill and the disabled. In our three years 1970–73, there will have been an increase of 30 per cent. in places in hostels for the mentally ill; of 30 per cent. in places in homes for the mentally handicapped; and of about 20 per cent. in places in adult training centres for the mentally handicapped.

Mr. John Silkin: Increases on what?

Sir K. Joseph: On the 1970 levels. I am trying to cover a lot of ground fast, and I turn penultimately to the local authority personal social services revenue, where we face a slower rate of growth for next year. Yet the figure allocated next year of £395 million will be more than 50 per cent. up in real terms on the figure so allocated by the Labour Government in their last year of office.
Here again, we can show a sharp increase in the number of crucial staff. For example, there has been an 8 per cent. a year increase in the number of home helps during the Tory period compared with 2 per cent., on average, during Labour's term of office. There has been a sharp increase in the number of health visitors and district nurses; the number of home meals served in the last three years has increased by 35 per cent. and the number of social workers has risen by 33 per cent.
I do not say that these are enough, but they are significant evidence of the sharp increase in real spending where it most matters. I do not have full figures for 1973, but I gather from the grass roots that last year the local authorities spent more than they fore-

cast. I have to say that I rejoice that they did so. I must also tell the House that, with the lower rate of increase, 1974–75 spending will still produce a forecast expenditure level in the personal social services 15 per cent. above the level of 1972–73. How much of that is spent next year will depend upon how much was spent last year—because some local authorities spent far more than they had forecast.
The reduced level of rate support grant, compared with what local authorities forecast they would need, leaves it to local authorities to decide how to allocate the money available from the taxpayer. A suggested distribution of the money available was proposed by the Government, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment stressed that the decision on distribution was up to the local authorities. He and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development emphasised that personal social services may not be the sort of services on which local authorities will choose to economise during the coming year. It is up to the local authorities. Some may limit the growth in personal social services expenditure to the forecast rate; some may limit it even more than that, although I hope that there will be very few of the latter. Some, perhaps many, may decide to keep up the momentum.
It was I, as the Minister concerned, who invited the local authorities to prepare 10-year plans for the personal social services. In the last three years' expenditure, so far as we can judge, the financial assumptions underlying the invitation to submit 10-year plans have been fulfilled. The money has been available for the spending to be maintained at the level on which we advised the local authorities to base their 10-year plans. That includes even next year because of their over-forecast expenditure during the last two years.
We cannot tell what money will be available for the rest of the decade, but the plans which the local authorities have been to such pains to prepare will have been first-class exercises because they will have enabled them to sort out their own priorities, measure their own needs, and assess the implications of the priorities they have established.
The Government propose to publish shortly information derived from these 10-year plans as a feedback for the next time the local authorities are invited to revise their 10-year plans, but there is no disguising from the House that the reduced rate of acceleration to which the motion refers is a disappointment to the Government and will be a great disappointment to the local authorities and all interested in the personal social services. But I maintain that, as the amendment suggests, the substance of the services has not been touched. What is being affected is the rate of improvement. We all regret that, but let us all rejoice at the rate of improvement of the last three years and hope that we can recover that momentum. I hope, therefore, that the House will accept the amendment and reject the motion.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Before I call the next speaker, perhaps I may point out to the House that a considerable number of hon. Members want to speak and it would be helpful, therefore, if speeches were kept short.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I want to be brief and, if possible, non-political. Therefore, I shall refer first to some quite acceptable statistics of the number of people who will now be put at risk or whose hopes will be held back as a result of the Government's policies.
We are all well aware of what can be done for the disabled. We are all well aware that if they are properly assessed and go to good rehabilitation centres a substantial number of the disabled can be helped. These people can be helped, on an expanding market, only if we expand rapidly. I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that, although he made a nice, pleasant speech and said that things are going reasonably well and that he was sorry about the cuts, it is my view that about 1 million people will be disappointed by his statement and that 1 million people will be placed at risk by the Government's policies.
I am not going to use Labour Party policy or Labour Party figures; I am going to quote from Amelia Harris, a Government survey. This has clearly

shown that very severely handicapped people needing special care number 157,000; severely handicapped people needing considerable support number 356,000; and appreciably handicapped people needing some support number 616,000. Those figures total over 1 million people.
The right hon. Gentleman has a tremendous amount of compassion and understanding, and he knows that the cut-back taking place affects 1 million people who have had great expectations of relief. I shall give one other figure, again from Amelia Harris. There are 79,000 severely handicapped women living alone. The Secretary of State knows that these people can be helped if their needs are properly assessed and if there is a proper follow-up procedure.

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is talking thoroughly inaccurately. He is suggesting that, but for the abatement of the rate of acceleration next year, all those people would have been helped in one year. Most of them are receiving some help now, and many of them will receive more help next year. The hon. Gentleman is wrong in suggesting that but for the modest deceleration which we are discussing people would have been helped next year who otherwise would not have been helped.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I accept the Secretary of State's censure. What is wanted is not deceleration but rapid acceleration. Whether my party does it or the Conservative Party does it does not matter a damn to me. I am concerned about these people. In a civilised society we should be advancing and recognising need where it exists.
Having recognised the need, how does one tackle it? The intelligent use of assessment centres and their staff in rehabilitating people holds great promise. It can keep substantial numbers of people out of hospital. It can save substantial sums of money. In the last few months I have visited three units in particular. First, tremendous work is being done at Mary Marlborough Lodge, in Oxford, by Dr. Phillip Nicholls and his staff. He is a first-class man who treats all his staff as equals, and they assist severely handicapped people to return to their homes and lead full lives.
The problem is that the number of assessment centres is not being increased as rapidly as it should be. In the long-term the Secretary of State may save money as a result, but what we are talking about is morally right, economically sound and technically possible, and we should be proceeding along these lines
I discovered last week, out of the blue, that there is a development unit at the Royal Manchester Hospital where every year about 300 to 400 children under the age of 5 are seen. Their needs are assessed and a team looks after them in co-operation with the parents. Each year 300 young people who might otherwise become a burden on society are assisted to earn a living and take their place in the community. If we slow down the creation of such places, it is a terrible condemnation of our society. I am not making a political point. We should be convinced of the need to spend more money in this sector.
I have mentioned the Mary Marlborough Lodge for severely handicapped people and the child development centre in the Eccles and Swinton area. Across the river, in St. Thomas's Hospital, the really severely handicapped person—the respo-naut—can be assisted to live at home, and the hospital will send a social worker to bring him back to hospital when he is at risk. We must not cut back on such services. The Secretary of State was in a dilemma in this respect. There is a crisis of conscience. Heaven forbid the right hon. Gentleman ever becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think that he is happier and probably more content in his present post.
The Secretary of State referred to the long gestation period in the development of health centres. If the time it takes to bring a health centre into being is as long in the rest of the United Kingdom as it is in my constituency, the midwife will probably shoot herself because she would be waiting a very long time after the delivery of the baby. Clifton, Pendlebury and Swinton have been expecting since 1971. The birth of their health centre was announced in a local newspaper in 1971, but they still do not know when the baby will arrive.
By every criterion laid down by the Ministry—and there are six of them—

that area qualifies, except for one which does not apply to my constituency. Swinton, Pendlebury and Clifton qualify for a health centre by the definition laid down by the Department. The matter was agreed in 1971, and people are still making up their minds about it in 1974. I have heard of gestation periods, but this is ridiculous. It is high time the Minister made up his mind and said that there was a clear case for providing the people of Swinton, Clifton and Pendlebury with a health centre.
People talk from time to time about the need to make peace with the miners. I am, proudly, the son of a miner. I was brought up in a mining community. I live in a mining area in North Wales, and my constituency has a very large mine in it. An uncle of mine died in 1931 coughing up his lungs with silicosis. Friends in Wrexham cough up their lungs because they suffer from the miners' disease. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, probably knows a large number of people who cough up their lungs.
I do not refer to this matter for emotional reasons. A long time ago I made representations to the Ministry about the need for it to review its policy relating to the victims of pneumoconiosis. This morning I had a report about a widow whose pneumoconiosis claim was turned down. The wording states:
On the balance of probabilities, he did not die from pneumoconiosis.
I know that he died from pneumoconiosis because I met him and I heard him and saw him cough up his lungs. The pathologist opened him up when he was dead and said that he had pneumoconiosis. Yet some bright spark of an insurance officer, although everyone agreed that the man had died of the disease and that his widow should benefit, said, "No. I will appeal". He then went to court, where the matter was argued statistically. This is a callous situation. How mean can one get, indeed how obscene can one get, when there is argument about whether 10, 15 or 20 per cent. of a man's lungs has been destroyed? The man himself knew what he had; he was dying of it. His widow knew that he died of it. His doctor and neighbours knew that he died of it. The pathologist knew that the man had died


of the disease, but some bright spark in London had doubts. In legalistic jargon, the bureaucrat said that on the balance of probability he did not die of the disease.
If the Under-Secretary of State wants to show the miners that he has their interests at heart he must review his policy and reconsider the way in which the Government handle the victims of miners' diseases.

8.20 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) will have the sympathy of most people on his last point. I agree that the phrase "balance of probability" is a typical example of a bureaucratic decision. I do not know whether we had the full facts of the case, but certainly in most of what he said the hon. Gentleman has the sympathy of the House. However, having put such an example of what happens under "bureaucracy", I do not know why most of the hon. Gentleman's favours are bestowed on a system that would have the effect of extending the bureaucracy to other aspects of our life. For this reason I like to see a greater measure of private enterprise in any decisions which are made. That perhaps is the difference between the hon. Gentleman and myself.
I congratulate the Opposition on choosing this subject on one of their Supply Days. In a situation in which the overall inflationary problems facing the country are reaching such dangerous proportions—when it was obvious to everybody that some economies would have to be made to defeat the overriding killing dangers of inflation—it was obvious that there would have to be some cuts or slowing up in expenditure. When these cuts affect the National Health Service and social security, it is right that the subject should be examined in detail by Parliament. This Opposition Supply Day debate follows the proper decision made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government to stop inflation whilst seeking to maintain the material standards of our people and to preserve our general services. This is what they had to do to avoid our nation going bankrupt. Having taken the steps they have, it is

right that the House should examine the allocation of the restricted amount of money which may now be spent—restricted only in the sense of the sum being a reduced future budget rather than a cut. It is important that we should examine the right things to be done in this situation
Although 90 per cent. of the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Dept-ford (Mr. John Silkin) were useful and constructive—he made practical points which I hope my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and the Department will keep in mind in coming to their view on reduced allocations—it was a pity that the right hon. Gentleman sought to drag in a bit of "party blarney". The right hon. Gentleman had a good case to put in this useful debate without having to go in for such obvious party politics. I suppose it must be said that the Labour Party is responsible since in tabling its motion it referred to "savage cuts" as though to imply that the Conservative Government were being deliberately savage and unfair. Hon. Members opposite know that that is not true, and there was nothing in the right hon. Gentleman's argument to substantiate the suggestion of "savag" cuts.
Nowadays everybody seems to find it necessary in a debate of any sort to refer to the miners. The right hon. Member for Deptford managed to bring the miners into his remarks and sought to tie up that argument with BUPA. The BUPA organisation has a very fine record. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman, for purely sectional reasons, wished to go out of his way to seek to undermine that great organisation which is doing good work. Whenever I go to Blackpool—and I go there quite often, though no doubt the right hon. Gentleman goes only when his party conference is held there—and when I enjoy the bracing breezes, I do not envy the convalescent home which has been set up for miners in the resort. I have always taken the view that it is a sensible thing that they have fixed up that arrangement for themselves. Why should BUPA be dragged up in the House when it is merely seeking to do the same sort of thing?
In the long term if we sought to cut out BUPA altogether the scheme would probably be set up elsewhere, in Ireland


or on the Continent. What would happen would be that we should lose those contributions from the revenues of this country and it would undoubtedly be pursued as a scheme elsewhere. It would also rob this country of the skill of the doctors who stay in this country because of the finances and assistance provided by such bodies as BUPA. I am not prepared to let private patients rob other more deserving cases of their proper priority. I do not think that happens. The fact that those doctors remain in the country gives us a better service which in the long run helps everybody.

Mr. John Silkin: I take it that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) was here when I read the advertisement from the Financial Times. That advertisement instanced the example of a little girl going straight into a private room of a hospital. Did that not strike the hon. Gentleman in the present situation, where one wishes to have a united nation, as obscene?

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I heard the reference by the right hon. Gentleman to that advertisement. That is what I had in mind when I said that he was seeking to bring in party politics and matters of class bitterness and class distinction. I heard the right hon. Gentleman quote the Financial Times. I know what his intentions were in doing so. He wanted to give the impression that once again the Tories wanted to look after the favoured few, while the lovely Labour Party would look after the masses of real deserving people. That is not true. Indeed, what he said was obscene since it was untrue. It is not good that the right hon. Gentleman should seek to divide the nation in that way, and it is a pity that he has sought to upset this debate. The right hon. Gentleman had many good practical points to make. I do not believe that BUPA was deserving of his censure. After all, as an ex-Minister he has a responsibility to point to the good BUPA does.
I wish to make one quick point before I get on to the Peterborough Hospital and certain matters which I want to press on the Under-Secretary of State. If a slowing down of Government expenditure is necessary, and if the situation calls for imposition of cuts, there are surely many services which my right hon. Friend the

Secretary of State for Social Services could look at as well as those he mentioned in his speech. I should like to put one example to the Under-Secretary of State, and I shall be interested to hear the Government's answer. This matter relates to social security rather than to hospitals.
On Saturday, 12th January of this year, in what is known as the "Late Late Show", run by a Mr. Byrne in Southern Ireland, it was announced that the show had paid to bring over an Irish lady living in Liverpool to give some testimony to the viewers of Southern Ireland. What follows is the testimony that she gave, and I believe that it was part of an attempt to point out how unfair was the situation in Ireland where a father is not forced in law to maintain his wife and children when he is separated from them. I believe that an effort is being made to alter that state of affairs, and it is not for me to comment on what another country like Ireland does.
However, the lady said that, because she was separated from her husband and wanted to keep the four children of the marriage, she sought advice and was advised to come to England. She had never been to England before. With her four children, she took a boat and landed at Liverpool. Within 24 hours of her arrival she went to the social security office and, as a result, she and her four children were put in an hotel. The total cost to social security was £30 a week, £25 going to the hotel and the other £5 to her to spend on the children. After five weeks in the hotel, paid for by our social security arrangements, she was allocated a council house at Liverpool and given £120 to buy furniture, again by social security. She is now living in that council house, and she receives £20 a week from our social security. Of that sum, £4·10 is for rent and the remainder is to keep herself and her children.
I am as sympathetic as anyone to the desire to build up proper safeguards and safety nets for people in trouble. But is my hon. Friend satisfied that this is the right way to spend British taxpayers' money?

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are debating the Government's cuts in health and personal social services. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) is raising a matter


affecting our social security arrangements. There have been no cuts in social security. Is not the hon. Gentleman out of order, therefore?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that that is a point of order. Perhaps the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) will be able to reply to the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) and to finish what he has to say. Alternatively, it may be that he will allow the hon. Member for Willesden, West to intervene if he wishes.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: My point is that the cuts which we all deplore on hospitals could be considerably less if cuts were made in the other area of the Secretary of State's responsibility, social security payments. If we saved money there, it could be spent in areas like those referred to by the hon. Member for Eccles.

Mr. Carter-Jones: But how many people does the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) imagine are doing this in this country?

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Eccles has asked that question. I pass it straight over to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. That is precisely what I want to know. How many people are doing it? If we find that a sufficient number are doing it to enable us to save money by stopping it, we can spend more on hospitals and on the home help service. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to tell us, because people believe it to be a widespread practice and it is the kind of practice which is disturbing so many of our citizens. If it is widespread, it should be dealt with, and I hope that this Government will have the courage to deal with it.
The final matter to which I wish to refer has to do with Peterborough. It has been a good neighbour to London. At the request of the Government of which the right hon. Member for Dept-ford was a member, Peterborough agreed to accept the new towns procedure and take overspill from London. That has happened, and the procedure for dealing with the overspill is moving reasonably satisfactorily. However, I discovered that the hospital services which were set up to deal with the Peterborough district

as it then existed are not being expanded to deal with the additional people coming as a result of the overspill and new town procedures being foisted upon Peterborough by the Government.
I believe that this and any future Government have to recognise that if an area like Peterborough is prepared to help solve what is a national problem the local people making that contribution ought not to suffer as a consequence. The Peterborough Memorial Hospital was just about adequate to meet the needs of the area before the expansion plans to bring in thousands of other people.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has visited Peterborough, and I know that he is aware of the problem. I ask him whether he will see to it in his Department that, in addition to Government grants which are made to regional hospital boards to deal with the general hospital services in their region, there will be an extra direct grant to any area taking on special responsibility such as that which Peterborough is now doing. I want him to discover within the regulations how that can be done. I know that my hon. Friend has sympathy with my view. In his official capacity he has said that this direct grant, which I think is morally right and ought to be put into effect, cannot be given. He said that the Department must keep to the procedures laid down.
My hon. Friend made a good impression when he went to Peterborough. People there thought that he was the finest type of Conservative Minister. I endorse that view. I was delighted that he visited Peterborough, and he is welcome to come again at any time. However, on this issue, unless the Government face the facts and accept what is Peterborough's due, he and I will have to continue a battle. Both he and his right hon. Friend will not easily silence me on this matter. The needs of the area are justified. Peterborough has been asked to bear a burden that it should not have to bear alone. Therefore, I want to use the opportunity of this Supply Day provided by the Opposition to impress upon my right hon. and hon. Friends, who now have the power of government, that Peterborough should get its proper deserts and have its problems examined with sympathy.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) began by congratulating the Opposition on their motion and agreeing that the Government have got their priorities wrong. We look forward to welcoming him in our Lobby when the Division takes place, as do his constituents in Peterborough.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: That is a twisted interpretation of my speech.

Mr. Mayhew: The point that I wish to make refers mainly to the impact of the cuts on the mentally sick and handicapped. I listened with great attention to the Secretary of State when he explained the mathematics of the cuts and how they will affect various forms of Government and local authority expenditure. It was not at all clear from his figures exactly what effect these cuts will have on these services. The right hon. Gentleman gave us a series of figures designed to show, I concede instantly, that expenditure in almost all these spheres is substantially above the level of expenditure during the Labour Government's period in office. But that does not help us to understand the problem. The problem is what effect these cuts will have on the kinds of schemes about which the right hon. Gentleman was talking. How will this year's expenditure compare with last year's? I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will try to enlighten us on what we all want to know, which is not told us by partisan comparisons between now and 1970.
The one thing that I deduce from such figures as we have is that at best there will be a standstill in the increase of capital expenditure in 1974 compared with 1973. I hope that I shall be corrected if I am wrong on that point.
The fact is that in the spheres about which I am talking there was already a critical situation before the cuts were made. The Government's policy for handling the problem of the mentally sick and handicapped in our community is right. The Opposition have always supported the policy of running down the mental hospitals and making provision in the community for all those patients who ought not to be there. But hon. Members who are in touch with the problem

in their constituencies know that the policy has not been working.
Even before the cuts, the provision of community services lagged far behind what was necessary. The result was that many patients were coming out of hospital improved in their situation and condition but without support in the community. In consequence, they were relapsing and going back into mental hospitals, finding themselves in reception centres, sleeping out, or in other difficulties.
Now we are faced with having to cut these absolutely vital services. I recall that before the cuts the MIND organisation, of which I am chairman, made a survey of what local authorities were doing to provide residential accommodation for the mentally sick and handicapped coming out of hospital who would otherwise have to stay in hospital. We compared the performances of all the local authorities in 1970 and 1973. Though these two surveys showed that there had been some improvement, we concluded—I do not think that it is disputed—that the provision of community care for these people was still grossly inadequate before the cuts were made.
The Secretary of State said that it is heartbreaking that so many of these projects, conceived under the pressure of the local authorities, the voluntary organisations and the Government, have now to be deferred or abandoned. I should like to convey the despair, almost, of those who have been trying to stimulate local authority construction of day centres, residential hostels, training centres, and so on, when they see the most adventurous and imaginative local authorities now being punished, in effect, and the lazy ones being given an excuse for continued indolence. That is the effect of the sudden switches and sudden cuts in future available finance.
In my constituency Greenwich Borough Council produced an imaginative and ambitious community plan for nursery schools, a home for the elderly and, in particular, a £160,000 combined day centre for the physically handicapped and mentally sick, providing 60 places. There is a parallel day centre already working admirably in the borough. The proposed day centre was scheduled for 1974–75, together with a £197,000 training centre for the mentally handicapped, with


80 places. These projects are now at risk, whereas previously they were certain. Tomorrow, representatives of the borough council will be meeting Government officials to decide whether the schemes can stay in the programme.
Councillors in my constituency are asking whether they have been wasting their time by following the Government's lead and encouragement and producing an ambitious plan for services for the mentally sick and handicapped. They are asking if they will be able to carry on with these admirable schemes. No doubt what they feel is also felt by the best local authorities all over the country.
Because of the lack of community facilities for the mentally sick and handicapped the situation is becoming chaotic. It has been aggravated by the aftermath of the Seebohm Report. There is an almost universal feeling that at the moment the changes recommended by the Seebohm Report have been greatly to the detriment of the care of the mentally sick and the handicapped.
A psychiatrist friend told me a few days ago that he was called to see an old lady who, it was thought, might have to be compulsorily admitted to a mental hospital. When he called to see the lady the psychiatrist met a welfare officer—a young man who had formerly been a child care officer. The welfare officer, though he had no doubt been an excellent child care officer, simply did not know the provisions of the Mental Health Act. He did not know the provisions for compulsory admission to mental hospitals. As the old lady was out, my psychiatrist friend used the time to inform the welfare officer—who should have been able to protect the old lady from the attempts of the psychiatrist to have her put into hospital—of the provisions of the Mental Health Act.
We all hope that the Seebohm reforms will settle into place and that generic training of social workers will bring about further specialised understanding of all fields, including mental sickness. However, in the meantime this thoroughly unsatisfactory situation is adding to the difficulties resulting from the lack of residential care.
I make one suggestion of a sensible cost-effective way of helping to ease this terrible lack of community services.

It is much cheaper and in many ways better to back voluntary effort in this field at a time such as this. Voluntary organisations can make economical and successful provision for community care for the mentally sick and mentally handicapped. I do not know whether an honorary chairman should declare an interest, but the MIND organisation is applying to the Secretary of State for further financial assistance to carry out its programme to provide group homes for these patients. The organisation's local associations already have 70 such homes, and there are another 70 in the pipeline.
Many voluntary organisations, such as MIND, carry out their work very economically. It is by no means false economy to give financial assistance to voluntary organisations for the work they are doing and I hope that the Secretary of State will pay attention to this point.
The Secretary of State argued his case well and put a brave face on it. No one doubts his sincere regret at having to make the kind of statement that he made today. But, having paid public tribute to him on more than one occasion on his success on squeezing money out of the Exchequer for the mentally sick and the mentally handicapped, I am entitled to say that his failure to protect—as I see it—these people now detracts from the reputation that he has built up. If fairness in government means anything it means giving priority to those in most distress, to those in greatest need and least able to look after themselves, and they are without question the mentally sick and the mentally handicapped, those who look to the Secretary of State, and they are the people who feel seriously let down.

8.45 p.m.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Any young and aspiring politician could do worse than read the opening speeches of the debate tonight, because in them there is a horrible warning and it is, "Never, never trust statistic". The right hon. Member for Dept-ford (Mr. John Silkin) made his usual powerful speech, based on statistics, and then my right hon. Friend, on the basis of another set of statistics, completely demolished the right hon. Gentleman's argument.
The right hon. Gentleman is a very pleasant man and I must tell him that I agreed with many things he said tonight. I agreed with what he said about the problems of the hospitals, and all of us are worried that so many nurses must come from the agencies. But the right hon. Gentleman is mixing up a staffing problem and a cut. He talked of a 20 per cent. cut. That sounded terrible, as the motion sounds terrible. Here are the so-called wicked Tories, cutting the health service, but the truth of the matter is that we are spending hundreds of millions of pounds more on the health service than did the Labour Government. The growth of expenditure goes on increasing year after year. As my right hon. Friend put it, in real terms 50 per cent. more is being spent today than in the last year of Labour's office.
It is the rate of expansion on which the cuts have fallen, and that is very different from the rate of expenditure. We should all like to see the planned improvements going ahead as planned, but it is they and they alone which have been cut, and expenditure has not been cut. How could it be said to have been cut when today twice as many home helps are operating as only three years ago and when the meals-on-wheels service has increased by one-third? Those are excellent figures.
Across the Floor of the House we share a care for those who are disadvantaged in this life. I am sure that Opposition Members go round their constituencies as assiduously as we go round ours. We all know that more has been spent on the ill, the mentally sick, the mentally handicapped, the physically disabled and the chronically sick than ever before—that we have had introduced the invalidity benefit and the constant attendance allowance. We can all give instances of increased expenditures on the health service that my right hon. Friend has initiated. My right hon. Friend is unsurpassed in helping the needy, certainly over the last 20 years. More have been granted State help by my right hon. Friend than ever received it previously.

Mr. John Silkin: The hon. Lady says that more is being spent by the Conservative Government in 1973—was it 1973–74?—than was spent by the Labour Gov-

ernment. I do not dissent from that. But if she cares to look at the Labour Government's White Paper on Expenditure, published in 1970 and projected four years ahead, I think that she will find a rather different conclusion from that which she has reached.

Mrs. Knight: I think that I would find exactly the same conclusion. Whatever was said in a Labour Government White Paper, my point is simply that more money is being spent on the health services today than has ever been spent on them previously. That cannot be described as a cut, and certainly not a savage cut.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am not trying to make a party point. I am seriously trying to understand his matter. The Minister said that the Government were spending 50 per cent. more in real terms than were the Labour Government. That we accept. He also said—and we agree—that it is a pity that there have to be cuts or reductions, because he agrees that even more ought to be spent. But from where are all these additional sick people coming? If there is 50 per cent. more expenditure, from where are they all coming?

Mrs. Knight: The point is that many people who have been sick have not been helped until now. We should all like more help still to be available. All of us have our special pet causes, upon which we should like more money to be spent, I want more to be done for deaf children, for disabled housewives, for special training for the blind and for the mentally handicapped. Much more should be spent on the mentally handicapped. But we must face the fact that our Exchequer is not a bottomless pocket. We are not exactly a church mouse country, but neither are we an Onassis country. There is a limit on what we can spend on even the most worthy causes.
I do not attack my right hon. Friend for not helping enough. There is an area in which I criticise him strongly for helping too much. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) cited a particular case. I shall cite another. I think that my right hon. Friend is quite wrong in helping strikers with social security benefits. These payments will enable them to strike. It is


an outrage to the vast majority of taxpayers that they should be forced to support the wives and children of men whose declared aim is to bring down this country. It was reported in the Sunday Telegraph of yesterday that the National Union of Mineworkers has decided not to pay strike money in the event of a miners' strike, as the strikers will be able to claim social security benefits. With those benefits and the tax refunds which will be received, no striker will feel unbearable hardship until many weeks have passed, if at all, and the NUM's funds will remain intact.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that the NUM has assets of about £20 million?

Mrs. Knight: I am not able to assess its assets, but I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. That may well be so. Whatever the NUM's assets are, they are to remain intact because the money is to come from social security instead.
In view of the very great hardship striking miners will cause to the rest of the community, the number of people who will be thrown out of work in the event of a strike, the bankruptcies, sickness and suicides which will occur, it is the height of folly, and cruel folly at that, to give hand-outs to the strikers from the taxes paid by the very people whom the strikers will harm so much.
It is as if a man were expected to pay for the gun with which a highwayman will hold him up, or for the rope which will hang him or the knife which will cut his throat; the highwayman, the hangman, or the knifer cannot perpetrate the crime without the help of the victim. This is what is so ridiculous.
The miners must be made to face up to the consequences of the action they contemplate. They cannot expect the State and social security to pay them to cripple the State. It is utter madness. The unions have strike funds. If the unions are hell-bent on striking, let them at least have the morals to use those funds.
It is said that if the State withheld benefits pictures and television programmes would materialise within days showing hungry, perhaps even ragged, children, probably scavenging at the dustbins. But it is a man's responsibility—

a woman's, too—to see that his children do not go hungry. When men are fit, able and capable of work and have jobs to do, it is not the State's responsibility to feed their children.
I sometimes think that the Welfare State has gone mad. I have here a newspaper cutting describing the case of a woman in Birmingham with a job to do at £15 per week. She was told by the Department of Health and Social Security to leave her job because she would be better off drawing social security. I have letters from constituents who are angry and upset about this. There are many people today who have tried to stand on their own feet, who have saved their money, and who have been prudent, but who, when they see how the money they pay in taxes is being used, become deeply upset. They would like that money to go to the obviously disadvantage, to the real needy—the mentally handicapped, the physically handicapped, and so on. They would not grumble then. That is what they want their money to be used for—not for this extraordinary charade of helping enemies of the State to cripple it.
I believe that the people of this country have had quite enough of this sort of thing. We are a compassionate country and we want help to go to the needy but not to people who use that help against us. I hope that when my right hon. Friend reads this debate he will recognise that we want real help for the National Health Service in every possible way, but it must be for those who need it and deserve it, not for those who do not.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: The muddled emotionalism of the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) has taken us far from the debate. On her last point, when she referred to miners as enemies of the State, I would merely comment that she has clearly aligned herself with Lord Carrington, who is also able to equate the miners in the present situation with the Nazis before the war. It does not do the hon. Lady credit for the real feelings she has for the National Health Service that she should have been led astray into that kind of argument.
I agreed with much that the hon. Lady said about the various sectors of the


National Health Service and the social services which need further support. I hope that during the course of my short speech I shall be able to deal with some of those points.
The Secretary of State qualified as Chancellor-designate by the way that he was able to juggle the figures that he presented. The point the right hon. Gentleman missed all the time in trying to justify himself is that the greatest pressing need of the National Health Service for the last 10 years has been for greater resources, not fewer. In the argument that has gone on across the Floor of the House about the amounts given by this administration or any other, the salient point is not what has happened in real terms to the cash but the percentage of the gross national product which has been given. My Government between 1964 and 1970 improved the direct share of gross national product from less than 4 per cent. to 5·3 per cent. We have still not reached 5·5 per cent., despite the excellent record of help by the present Secretary of State.
The present cuts of £69 million on capital expenditure and £42 million on procurement, in the light of the inflationary situation, have hit the health services in recent months. Although the right hon. Gentleman talks about "real terms", those cuts are real cuts, because of galloping inflation and even if we had not had them at all they were equivalent, in terms of present costs, to a cut-back. We have the Secretary of State imprisoned and confined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that seems to be the fate of most Ministers of Health—and this Chancellor insists on running the economy on Tory dogma which is outmoded, unscientific, irrational and a sure prescription for disaster.
What is the dogma? It seems to me to be this, that private expenditure is good and public expenditure is bad. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made this clear on 17th December when he brought in his mini-budget and said:
I am sure that it is right that the main weight of the action I am taking should he not on persons or private sector industry but on public expenditure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December 1973, Vol. 866, c. 963.]
He makes quite clear what his intention is.
What are public and private expenditure? I have mentioned the £69 million and the £42 million cut of public expenditure, but is this a necessity? In the community services, on health, on the disabled, the lame and the halt we spent jointly, as members one of another, £2,617 million in 1972–73 for these purposes out of our national resources.
Look at private expenditure. Last year we spent on tobacco £1,808 million, on alcoholic drink £2,948 million, on betting and gaming £400 million, a total of £5,156 million—private expenditure, twice as much as we communally spent on the National Health Service and on those three items alone of private expenditure, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to think is good expenditure.
We are now cutting what we spend on the sick and on the need for health care. We spend £1,567 million on cigarettes alone at the same time as the right hon. Gentleman seeks to cut down expenditure on communal health services.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): I should not like the hon. Member to get away too far with what he is saying, because what he is saying is that there are cuts on what is spent on the sick. He listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend and it was very clear at the time that the figures my right hon. Friend gave, which were not challenged, were not cuts on past expenditure but cuts on expansion in the future. The hon. Member cannot deny that.

Mr. Pavitt: I am not attempting to deny it. What I am saying is that the amount of increased expenditure as between the resources available for last year and this year is now being cut back, and the amount of the increase—which is what the right hon. Gentleman claims it to be—is not an increase at all, because examination of the figures for the three sectors, health, local executive councils, and local health authorities, shows that the sums of £69 million affecting capital expenditure and £42 million affecting procurement mean that expenditure will be more or less the same as last year's, and that means that with rising costs there is a real cut and not just a cut only on the increase.
I will admit that the cut of £69 million is probably in the right place in many ways, but the point being made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) and other hon. Friends is that this is irreplaceable in one sector, and that is the building of health centres. It takes years to develop a health centre; there have to be discussions with general practitioners, and they have voluntarily to join. With hospitals there may be delay but not an eventual loss, but if a health centre is delayed it may be lost. I am particularly concerned about the one at Neasden in my constituency. We have been fighting for it for five years, and now it may be lost.
I would remind the Minister that there were very long discussions with the BMA's General Medical Services Committee and there was a deputation to him on 13th September, and I will quote what one doctor. Dr. J. R. Caldwell, said in reaction to what happened:
How daft can the Secretary of State be?
He said:
The whole of Government propaganda has been directed towards the construction of health centres. In the event, however, the Secretary of State has been saying ' You must improve general practice but in no case must you spend any money on it '. The politicians have shouted for health centres, hoping that the GMSC would hold doctors back and that we would be blamed for bad facilities …".
This is not a politician talking—it is a general practitioner in the NHS. Where will my area's share of the £42 million cuts be made? For the North-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board the cut will be £2·1 million, but the staff cannot suffer, because wage agreements have already been made. Will it be on food, medical supplies or diagnostic equipment?
The House will be pleased that under phase 3 nurses have made a settlement of their pay demand, but will the cut of £42 million increase the anomalies of the nursing service? It is the only profession where, when one advances to a position of greater responsibility, one loses pay for a period. A State-registered nurse who wishes to take midwifery immediately loses pay to go back to student rates. A senior sister in a psychiatric ward who takes a diploma in mental health immediately loses a large amount of her pay. A clinical teacher in

a hospital can be appointed only from those who have had at least two years as ward sister. Thus, if such a woman is appointed she loses £400 a year immediately.
I want to suggest what the right hon. Gentleman can do in the cut-back about the anomalies—I am not talking about the increases—which have recently been accepted, but he must spend more money to remove the injustices I have just illustrated in the nursing service.
Consider the cut-back effect on the local health authority in Brent, with its population of 275,000. The first thing that will be affected is our plans for a day centre for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped which requires 120 places in the next two years. Will that be cut back? We need 60 places, which are in the process of being planned, for the chronically sick and physically handicapped. We need 100 places for elderly persons looked after by supporting services. Will those plans be cut back?
One reason why we suggest that the right hon. Gentleman's figures are nonsense is the increased expenditure in the last three months caused by the three-day week and fuel shortage and prices on the meals-on-wheels and other necessary transport. The arrangements that have had to be made to cope with the power cuts mean that next year's expenditure will be greatly increased for merely supplying the same service. Our new area health authority in Brent is already facing a situation in which there will be a 15 per cent. shortage of staff when the area health authority starts on 1st April because of the number of people who have moved over from the health department into local government. Will more money be available to recruit fresh staff? Will the cuts mean that plans for health education, including preventive medicine, will go by the board? Is that another scheme which will be aborted in its embryo state?
If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make useful cuts I offer him two which would total £6½ million. Why not cut the £4½ million spent by the drug industry on sending 7,640,000 free journals to 20,000 GPs every year, paid for indirectly by the Department of Health and Social Security? The right hon. Gentleman could further save the £2


million spent by some drug companies on advertising brand names, a practice which the Minister exhorts prescribers to ignore and use the national formulary.
The NHS is facing a crisis. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman because I know that he must have fought hard in the Cabinet to get away with the amounts that he has, in view of the £1,200 million being taken, but I feel sad, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), that the Minister who has done perhaps more in a number of areas for the dispossessed has had to back-track on health progress through no fault of his own and through no fault of his departmental officials.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. J. Selwyn Gummer: We should look honestly at a situation which is painful to us all. None of us likes a cut-back in the rate of expansion. None of us likes the fact that cherished projects in particular areas of the National Health Service or any other part of the social security services cannot now go ahead as quickly as we had hoped.
The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin), who opened the debate, did the House a disservice in not pointing clearly to what was happening. He gave the unfair impression that there was an attempt to cut down on present provision or change the general way in which priorities have been established in the health service. If there is to be a cutback in expansion, the first thing to ask is whether the ways in which it will be administered are right. I was very pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services say that in the areas of mental illness, geriatric care and concern for the young chronically sick the rate of growth would be protected.
I am particularly pleased that my right hon. Friend said that about mental health, because one of the problems of dealing with the mentally sick is that their pressure group is, by the very nature of their illness, much less effective than the pressure group for many other people. Although they may have their friends, families and well-wishers, they do not have themselves, in a sense. Therefore, T am pleased that my right hon. Friend

has put mental health high on the list of those areas that he will protect.
I believe that the House would also say that help for the geriatric section of the service is very important. More and more in my constituency, and throughout the country, the very frail are coming into the homes and centres. People are living much longer. They often come in a condition that is particularly difficult to deal with because they can stay in their homes longer owing to the ancillary services, which we have expanded so much faster in recent years.
It is right that the cuts should not fall upon the expansion of the services I have mentioned, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on those decisions.
In a debate such as this it is wrong to pretend that there are easy alternatives in the reduction of public expenditure. For example, it was easy for the right hon. Gentleman to refer to what he called the cuts in housing and house building, as a throw-away line. It is interesting that that is one area in which no cuts are arranged—one area in which there is no intention that the cuts shall fall.

Mr. John Silkin: If the hon. Gentleman—my close neighbour, though not politically—wishes to be fair, which he is doing his best to be, he will tell the House that I was not at that moment referring to cuts in money but to cuts in the number of houses built. That was the whole point of my reference to housing.

Mr. Gummer: If I misled the House in my recollection of what the right hon. Gentleman said, I apologise. It may have been that that reference was slipped in in much the same way as the Maplin Channel Tunnel reference, which was to suggest that by not spending £800,000 this year on the one and not spending £1¼ million on the other we could somehow make up for £100 million in the health and social services. Misapplied figures of that kind draw the public's attention to a kind of politics which is not acceptable.
The same was true when we talked about private expenditure in the health service. If we lived in an ideal world in which every decision was made to enable everybody in a minute grade to


receive the help and service his disease needed, at precisely the right moment and in precisely the place in which he lived, it would no doubt be wrong to have any kind of private provision. But when we have a service which desperately needs all kinds of extra resources and money I cannot believe that it would be sensible to remove from it such moneys as come from private provision. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if there are any cases in which such private provision means that others who need help do not receive it, we should have a system to prevent that happening. But if the right hon. Gentleman merely objects to the extra money which comes in, to the building of nursing homes and the extension of hospitals because of private provision, that is a great mistake.
I conclude by referring to a point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight). I would not go as far as she did in the way in which she presented her views on social service benefits. Neither would I go so far as another hon. Member, who said that we ought not to be discussing this matter at all. I believe that at this moment, when we are concerned with the difficult matter of trying to decide how best to restrict public expenditure, we ought to ask ourselves, in addition to what we have already discussed, three simple questions; first, even if there were only one case of the kind to which my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) referred, is it not true that such cases mean that many people in this country are unhappy about the way in which social security benefits are provided? Is it not important that they should be made happier by an investigation of these cases so that the public may know what is true, and the rules changed?
Secondly, is it not true that when we are dealing with a matter of this kind we ought to remind those who would disrupt our society of the very people whom the right hon. Gentleman mentioned—the greater medical profession, all those dedicated men and women, the doctors, nurses and the people who provide food and keep hospitals clean, those whose standard of living is attacked at this moment by those who do not think of them but think only of themselves and

are determined to grab from society more than society can pay and more than they really deserve in comparison with these other people?
The third point—and this I aim directly at my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary—is that at the moment, much to the despair of some people, we are operating a National Health Service in which a great deal of money and public resource is being used for the procurement of abortions. I ask my hon. Friend whether that is the first priority in a place like Lewisham, where so many people who need operations through no fault of their own are kept on long waiting lists because of a certain priority which we have made.
I ask my hon. Friend to look very carefully at the general problem in London and to see whether, in the general discussion which he will no doubt be having with his right hon. Friends in seeing what can be done for London, a careful look can be taken at the difficulties of the health service and other services in London. We are most concerned to make sure that we do not lose from London's services many people who go elsewhere because of the particularly high cost of living in this capital city.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. George Wallace: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) said categorically that there were no cuts in housing. Statistically, that may be true, but the hon. Gentleman may or may not be aware that in Norfolk planning permission is being held back for a number of schemes, entirely because of the lack of schools through the Government's action in reducing expenditure. There is, therefore, some indirect cut in housing.
At a time when the serious economic situation is inflicting increasing hardship on the less well-off sections of the community, it should be a question not of cuts but of an expansion in the stream of social services and in the essential stream covering the welfare of the aged, the disabled and others. The nation is called upon to make sacrifices. Naturally, we may differ about the reasons, but one thing is clear—there is no equality of sacrifice implied by the Government's actions. There would be less bitterness


and more co-operation if there were a greater measure of equality than is in evidence today.
If she only knew it, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) sowed the seeds of revolution and disaster in this country by her very words, for there was an example of class hatred at its worst.

Mrs. Knight: Nonsense.

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Lady does not know what she is saying. There are many of us who, through bitter experiences over the years—I am not a young man—have fought and made sacrifices in order to bring about the degree of social security which we have today.

Mrs. Knight: Does not the hon. Gentleman remember the terms in which I spoke? I am all for social justice, but these are not deprived men. They have a job, they have health, and there is every reason why they should do that job and not expect the State to keep them.

Mr. Wallace: Has the hon. Lady no thought for the women or children? Has she no thought for the fact that these men, their wives and others at work have paid contributions and have some rights? Does she not realise—do the Government not realise—that some of my constituents are suffering social injustice at the present time, when those who work on certain days a week receive only two days' unemployment benefit and others get three days plus time-and-a-half on Saturdays? I have written to the Prime Minister. There has been no answer. We should get down to concrete problems like that and sow some harmony in the country, instead of trying to set worker against worker and class against class. Unfortunately, however, there are many people in the hon. Lady's party who speak and think as she does.
I do not understand how, in their amendment, the Government can claim to have maintained the substance of their programme while imposing cuts. The experience of all local authorities, including Norfolk, is that they have had to fall back and cut many of their vital services.
This sort of thing has gone on over a period of years. Why is it that at a time of financial stringency hospital building

always has to be cut and deferred? It has taken nearly 37 years to build one hospital in which I have been interested. Every time, the Government of the day never realise that in the end each postponement inevitably leads to greater costs. The same applies to deferred maintenance, whether of hospitals or schools. The longer maintenance is left, the greater is the neglect, and in the end the country has to pay far more as a result of that procrastination.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) spoke of the acutely difficult position in the National Health Service. I happen to be a member of the area authority covering his constituency. We are doing our best, but we are working under extreme difficulty. We have a minimum of senior staff, and we were lucky to get a headquarters only a few month ago. But Heaven knows what will happen. The organisation is nowhere near ready to put the scheme into effect.
I appeal to the Minister on one other matter which, though apparently of minor importance, is in fact quite serious. There has been a great deal of Press publicity about the shortage of drugs and dressings in the National Health Service. This is not a new story, but each time it is given prominence anxiety is caused to many people who depend on drugs for their life and will continue to do so throughout their lives. When scare stories of this kind appear, the Department ought to come in and give the facts. It should issue a proper denial and make clear that the situation as portrayed in the newspapers is not as bad as might seem.
I promised to be brief, and I shall leave matters there. I am sorry that I got a little heated, but there are times when some of us, quiet though we may wish to be, feel very strongly and deeply. I am extremely sorry that on this occasion the hon. Member for Edgbaston provoked me beyond the bounds which I normally keep.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Robert Redmond: I am glad to have the brief opportunity of following up a point raised by the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) about social security payments for strikers. I, too, have strong feelings on this matter, and I consider the hon. Member completely wrong to shift the


ground from talking about payments to strikers' families on to the people who are on short time as a result of industrial action in the coal mines. To use terms like "savage cuts" in the social services in a parliamentary motion when it is the opposite of the truth brings the whole House into disrepute, and it is a pity that we have to have a debate along these lines.
I could spend a long time discussing many areas of the social services, but I will not. The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) said earlier that he was chairman of a voluntary organisation. I am president of a branch of the Royal British Legion and I could speak at length on the needs of ex-service men and so forth. However, I want to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) said about social service payments for the families of people in industrial disputes.
I wish to refer to a letter which I received this morning from the managing director of a small company in my constituency about the current industrial relations situation. With a small firm the managing director is in close touch with the feeling of the people on the shop floor. He knows exactly what they are thinking, and it was about that that he wrote to me. It is a very forceful letter. He says that his employees—they are not employed in a highly paid industry—unanimously thought that there were too many scroungers on the social services today. "Scroungers" is his word, repeating what the employees said. [Interruption.] I can see that the hon. Member for Norwich, North is trying to misrepresent me but I am simply stating what was in the letter.
There is particular resentment on the shop floor that the Government are prepared to support families who should be supported by trade union funds. No doubt the Opposition will misrepresent what I have said, but I am merely conveying the feeling of a large number of people whom the Labour Party would try to claim are its supporters, particularly at a time such as this.
The week before last I attended a meeting of old-age pensioners in my constituency. If Labour Members are to be believed I should have had a somewhat rough passage at that meeting, but I had

nothing of the sort. Of course pensioners are not satisfied, neither am I. I am not at all satisfied with what the Government have done in social services but I am proud of their achievements. But the main complaint at that meeting, which was attended by about 700 pensioners, was there is no incentive today to thrift. Several old ladies put the point to me, saying "I have worked hard all my life, saved and been thrifty so that I might enjoy my old age. Now I see those who have gambled and been profligate and wasted their money drawing social security which is not available to me."
Before I am misrepresented again, I shall explain that my answer to them was that a lot of these people had been unable to save. They had been through a very rough time in the great depression, and I defended payment to them. Nevertheless, that was the criticism put to me. Again, the old people were extremely angry that we as a Government should be paying to strikers money that they have subscribed through their taxation and insurance payments throughout their working lives, and particularly because they were not able to go on strike to increase their earnings. I well remember last summer and autumn when we were told by the TUC that there would be strikes and industrial disputes in favour of an increase in old-age pensions. We do not seem to hear much of that today.
Finally, I wish to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston said. She did not make a vicious attack. I would not be a party to seeing the families of strikers starving or in trouble. It is right that many men are being forced to go on strike against their will, brought out by the heavy mob as we saw in the building strike in the autumn of 1972. Of course it is right that they should be helped, but they should be helped primarily by the unions, and only if the unions have no funds to give them should they be able to draw on the State.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Alec Jones: This debate has degenerated during the last half hour with the speeches of hon. Members opposite, particularly with reference to so-called "scroungers" on social security. If any hon. Member is aware of any scrounger on social security, he has a moral obligation and duty to refer the case to the Department.

Mr. Redmond: Mr. Redmond rose—

Mr. Jones: I shall not give way.

Mr. Redmond: The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting me.

Mr. Jones: I shall not give way. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) talked of trade unionists as enemies of the State. Many of her constituents will remember that the country owes a very heavy debt to the miners.
Listening to hon. Members opposite one would imagine that these cuts in expenditure have arisen by accident, as though the Government were not involved at all. The Secretary of State, with crocodile tears, said that he was sorry that he had to make the cuts, which, he said, were inevitable as a result of the energy crisis. But in December the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked how much the cuts depended on the actions of the miners and other industries. He replied:
If…the industrial troubles are settled soon, certainly there would be no immediate change in the proposals that I have made "—[OFFICIAL REPORT,17th December 1972; Vol. 866. c. 976.]
In other words, the Chancellor was clearly indicating that the cuts in health and education expenditure were not a consequence of the miners' dispute; they were admissions of Government failure over the past three and a half years—failure with which the Government should now be seeking to deal. But the Government have failed the nation; they have failed to support their own concept of "one nation". The Prime Minister is a great one for talking about "one nation", but no other group has done more to divide the nation than the present Government, the Prime Minister in particular.
On 18th December, The Guardian, which is no friend of the Opposition—it has never asked anyone to vote Labour to my recollection, and is not doing it now—said that:
from the point of view of national unity, in what the Chancellor acknowledged as the gravest crisis since the war, they have got it wrong.
Of course the Government have got it wrong because in making these cuts, they did not choose fairly-shared sacrifices. They chose to inflict savage cuts in public expenditure on schools, hospitals and

social services—the services on which the standard of living of ordinary people depends more than on anything else. The ordinary people depend upon publicly provided schools, publicly financed health services and publicly provided social services. They cannot possibly be expected to rely on private services.
The Secretary of State for Wales is supposed to be responsible for the health services, education and local government in Wales, but no Minister for Wales has taken part in this or the education debate, or given any indication how these cuts in public expenditure will affect education and health services in Wales.
Even before the cuts were announced the new area health authorities in Wales were seriously concerned about how they were to find the money to finance the health services. The Government, having claimed that the cuts are essential, should now indicate where they think they should be made and should not shelter behind the area health authorities and the local authorities, leaving them to do the dirty work.
The Secretary of State for Social Services said that the local authorities would be able to exercise choice in deciding where the cuts should be made in the social services. In Rhondda, the total capital expenditure allotted during the coming year is totally committed to one project, which is already under construction and cannot be stopped. It means that next year in Rhondda, irrespective of any local authority choice in the matter, the two day centres for the elderly will be stopped. The major kitchen at Ynysyfeio for providing meals-on-wheels is not to proceed. Therefore, when the Secretary of State said that local authorities would have an element of choice in deciding where the cuts should be made he was speaking only half the truth.
Today is a tragic day for the health and education services in Wales. It is a tragic day for the ordinary people. But it has been made inevitable by the three and a half years in office of the present Government.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin: The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) for putting the position so clearly. The cause


of the difficulty is deliberate Government policy to impose cuts in two areas—in the education and health services. My hon. Friend made a salutary point about the miners. I was sorry that one of two otherwise quite good speeches by hon. Members were spoiled by their clear venom and antagonism towards the miners. I do not propose to deal with the speech of the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond), who apparently thought that he had wandered into a debate on pensioners and social security payments whereas, in fact, it was a debate on cuts in the health service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) showed that the Secretary of State is absolutely wrong in assuring us, as he did today, that the reorganisation of the health service is proceeding well and happily. The right hon. Gentleman made a curious statement. He said that I was usually factually right but that my judgments were wrong. He then said that I was factually wrong in my opinion that the health service was likely to break down because of the lack of district community physicians. It was an opinion and not a fact that I was stating. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North made clear the terrible dangers and fears which are arising in the health service.
What has emerged clearly and universally from the debate—the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) first voiced it—is that there is unanimity in the House that we deplore the cuts being made in the health service. It is no good anyone pretending, although one or two hon. Members did, that these are what are called cuts in expansion. The figures have been increasing over the years, but the demand has been increasing, too. We have a larger population. We have an ageing population. The demand is much greater than it was.
How we know and love the comparisons which the Secretary of State makes. We hear them in every debate. In the first debate in the House to which I listened in July 1963 I heard the technique for the first time. He adopted it then, and he adopts it now. The basis is a comparison between the statistical position as it is now and the position under the Labour Government. Mr. Andrew Alexander dealt with the point as well

as anybody in Wednesday's Daily Mail when he said that the Secretary of State's use of statistics was "either sloppy or fraudulent". I would not say that. I merely say that what Mr. Uri Geller does to metal spoons the Secretary of State does to statistics: he bends them until they break.

Sir K. Joseph: I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to show that proposition to be true on any of the statistics used by me this afternoon. They were scrupulous and meticulous statistics.

Mr. Silkin: It is not the statistics about which I am complaining. It is the right hon. Gentleman's use of them. What I have noticed is that when the right hon. Gentleman produces statistics or comparables they are always slightly different ones and one needs a little time to examine them. However, the right hon. Gentleman will get a clear answer. The right hon. Gentleman spoke, for example. of a 20 per cent. cut in capital expenditure not really being a cut at all. He said that it was a cut in expansion, a cut in improvement.

Sir K. Joseph: Sir K. Joseph indicated dissent.

Mr. Silkin: I am sorry if I misheard the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps one of his hon. Friend's made that statement, and the right hon. Gentleman might wish to correct him. What we are facing is a damaging blow to one of the most important social services we have. I think that the Secretary of State agrees with me on this. I wonder why he did not stand up in Cabinet and do something about it. The business of asking Departments to cut equally when some Departments are more in need of funds than others should be resisted.
The Secretary of State for Social Services has always said that he will battle for the social services and for the health service.

Wing Commander Sir Eric Bullus: No doubt he did.

Mr. Silkin: The hon. and gallant Member says "No doubt he did", but I think that the right hon. Gentleman's attitude has something in common with the attitude of Tweedledum, who gave the following reason for not battling:
I'm very brave generally, only to-day i happen to have a headache.


We on this side of the House believe, and rightly believe, that the social services and the National Health Service have been betrayed—and have been betrayed by the Conservative Government. We shall press for their restitution and for their improvement, and we shall not be satisfied until they take the correct priority in our nation's expenses.

9.42 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): We on the Government side of the House are baffled by the purpose and aim of the Opposition in staging this debate.

Mr. Russell Kerr: It is pretty clear to us.

Mr. Alison: Perhaps it will not be so clear to the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) when I put some probing questions. The hon. Gentleman, who bulks so large at the moment, was not to be seen in the Chamber earlier this evening.
The question I wish to put is whether the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) thinks that some cut-back in public expenditure is necessary to release resources for export, in the light of pressure on resources, and particularly the deficits in balance of payments. If the Opposition do not think there should be some cut in public expenditure, do they think that all the cut-backs necessary to release resources for the purpose of exports—a purpose on which everybody is agreed—are to be piled on to the private sector, thus increasing the risk of higher unemployment and other considerations?

Mr. John Silkin: I do not think that I or any other Labour Member should be called upon to account for the total incompetence and failure of the Government's economic programme in the last three and a half years.

Mr. Alison: The Opposition having tabled their motion in this way, the right hon. Member for Deptford has no right to say that he will not answer the question whether the Opposition would propose to cut public expenditure at the present time. If we may assume that they would expect to make some public cuts in expenditure, the other question

on which the House should be given an answer is as follows: would the cuts which the Opposition might make in public expenditure fall on the services which we are discussing tonight? May we take it that, as a result of this motion critical of the Government's cuts in health and welfare expenditure, the right hon. Gentleman is fully committed, as soon as the Labour Party comes to power, to restoring all the cuts that we have detailed this evening?

Mr. John Silkin: We shall have to clear up the worst mess in economic terms that this country has ever been in, and that will be our position, and we do not know how much worse it will get in any further time during which the Conservative Party remains in Government.

Mr. Alison: I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends have taken the point, that the Opposition have tabled a critical motion denouncing the Government for cuts in public expenditure on health and welfare and, on being challenged about whether they disapproved of them and would restore them as soon as they returned to power, the right hon. Member for Deptford, in a way which would rejoice the heart of Andrew Alexander, has muffed the argument entirely and refused to come clean. He will not say whether the cuts that he has criticised will be restored.
I must invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to agree that it is an insult to the intelligence of this House for the Opposition to table a critical party political motion deploring the cuts of a limited kind that we have decided to make in public expenditure on health and welfare and then to say that they will do nothing about them, and that it would be their intention to maintain the cuts which they inherited from us. It is an insult to the intelligence of the British public and of this House to say that the Government should not make the cuts but that the Labour Party would not restore them.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that, when we had a similar situation before, the Labour Government had to do the same but only to the extent of £25 million, and not to the extent proposed now?

Mr. Alison: I am not satisfied with that argument, because the right hon. Member for Deptford, who is a member of the Shadow Cabinet, has refused explicitly to say that a Labour Government would restore the cuts that we have made—

Mr. John Silkin: I am not in fact a member of the Shadow Cabinet.

Mr. Alison: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. It is his inherent quality which automatically led me to assume that he was. I have no doubt that he will be. No personal insult was implied in what I said.
The right hon. Gentleman has refused to come clean about whether a Labour Government would restore the cuts that we are discussing because, he said, the Opposition did not know the situation that they would find when they came to office. However, the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) has not been so shy. It may be that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have not read the speech which he made on Friday. He was not afraid to come clean about what the Labour Party would cut and not cut. There was no reference in the priorities which he laid down for the expenditure that a Labour Government would make and the improvements that they would seek to bring about. He was quite unafraid to be specific, and they did not include any restoration of the cuts in public expenditure on health and welfare which we feel to be necessary.

Mr. John Silkin: I can assist the hon. Gentleman, because clearly he is playing for time. The fact is that my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) never said that he approved of any cuts. If the hon. Gentleman cares to read my right hon. Friend's speech he will see that he said that he thought that, in the first year or two while we were clearing up the worst mess that this country will ever have had, there would be nothing more to increase than old-age pensions and housing—one of which I have mentioned.

Mr. Alison: I have read the speech. I have it before me in its full splendour.
The right hon. Member for Deptford has moved a motion criticising the Government for making cuts in health and welfare expenditure which his party has

no intention of restoring in the short term. It is to that extent an insult to the intelligence of this House and of the British public.
To add injury to insult, the right hon. Gentleman then insulted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by trying to undermine and invalidate the hard figures which my right hon. Friend properly brought out to demonstrate how immeasurably superior this Government's performance had been in this connection to that of their predecessors.
Since the right hon. Gentleman was at pains to try to denounce my right hon. Friend and pour doubt on the validity of the figures that he has given, I will remind the House, by reference to the published and clearly available statistics in this sphere—which cannot be muffled and which nobody has attempted to muffle—in the current Public Expenditure White Paper, of the realities about which we are talking in the comparative programmes to which my right hon. Friend referred.
I start with capital expenditure on the health side for hospitals and community services. The figure for 1974–75 with which we shall end up—I refer to Table 2.11—is £240 million after the cuts on capital expenditure. Compare that with the figure that the Labour Government achieved in their last full year in office—£185 million. It is 30 per cent. higher, in real terms, than the figure achieved by the Labour Government in their last full year in office, yet the Opposition are now criticising us for cuts that they will not restore.
I turn now to local authority health services. The figure with which we shall end up in 1974–75—

Mr. Carter-Jones: Mr. Carter-Jones rose—

Mr. Alison: I must not give way, otherwise the right hon. Gentleman will accuse me of trying to play out time.
The figure with which we shall end up in 1974–75 on local authority health services' capital expenditure will be £19 million. That is 40 per cent. greater in real terms than the expenditure of £13·8 million that the Labour Government left us with in their last full year. So, after the cuts, the figure in real terms is 40 per cent. higher than they achieved in their last full year in office.
Let us now look at the overall health figures on the current side. The figure to which we shall have cut this expenditure for 1974–75 is the staggering sum of £2,500 million. This is an increase though smaller than we hoped, of £60 million on this year. What did the Labour Government manage to do in their last year? They increased expenditure in their last year by only £53 million. Therefore, after the cuts, we have increased expenditure on health, current local authority and central Government, by £60 million next year compared with £53 million by the Labour Government without cuts in their last year. What on earth are the Opposition griping and trying to criticise this Government about in this context?
I come now to the personal social services. I pay tribute to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite for the—

Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on this point?

Mr. Alison: No, because of the time.
I pay tribute to the deep concern that many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have for those who make use of the personal social services. The capital expenditure on personal social services by local authorities is a key figure. Capital expenditure by local authorities on personal social services next year will admittedly be cut back to £60 million. But consider the increase in the last year of the Labour Government. It was nothing like £60 million. They ended with a total of £38 million in their last full year in office. We have cut back the expenditure, but nearly doubled what they were showing in their last full year in office. Therefore, this is a ludicrous motion for the Opposition to table.
I now turn to current expenditure by local authorities. After the cuts—I stress after the cuts—current expenditure by local authorities in 1974–75 is 15 per cent. up on 1972–73, 32 per cent. up on 1971–72, and no less than 54 per cent. higher in real terms than in the last full year of the Labour Government. This is current expenditure by local authorities on the social services.
I stress again, against the background of these mammoth increases that my right hon. Friend has been able to secure—

the figures are indisputable because they are in the White Paper—the effrontery of the Opposition in criticising us for making cuts when they openly declare that they are not prepared to state which cuts they would restore. Indeed, they would not restore them at all. The truth is that the Opposition are unaccustomed to this scale of expenditure on the social services.
I turn now to some important questions raised by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) finished his speech, of which I heard part—I had a record of the latter part—by making a plea for protection of the mentally handicapped and for the Government to recognise the contribution which the voluntary sector can make by responding favourably to an application by the National Association for Mental Health, particularly the MIND campaign. The programme cannot be totally exempt in general terms. It cannot be given an absolute priority over all other aspects of the social services. Where cuts are applied, decisions must be left to local discretion, exercised in the light of local needs. However, there is no doubt as to my right hon. Friend's sympathy for this sector.
The hospital capital programme for the mentally handicapped will be one sector that we shall try to protect. In the local authority capital programme we shall do our best to take account of the priorities in the White Paper, Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped. I undertake to give sympathetic consideration—my right hon. Friend will support me—to this matter, without commitment, to the specific application from the organisation which the hon. Member for Woolwich, East mentioned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) asked me to consider a special grant direct from the Government to Peterborough. In considering capital allocations for regional hospital boards, or health authorities, as they will be in future, the Government take account of increases in regional population. If the regional population rises, the capital allocation follows it. If Peterborough's population is expanded, leading to an expansion in the population of the region as a whole, it will automatically entail a higher capital allocation, but it should be and


will be left to the incoming regional health authority—which will know the local situation and which will be under direct pressure, as the chairman of the region will be, from my hon. Friend—to divide the cake.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer), in a notable speech, asked us to consider sheltering mental illness from the exigencies of a modified rate of acceleration. My right hon. Friend said that he hoped to shelter this sector, and this consideration will be borne in mind.
After the cuts, the annual average growth rate for the whole health and personal social services programme for the four years from 1970–71 to 1974–75 substantially exceeds that of the Labour Government during their last four years

in office. Our growth rate is accelerating about 12 per cent. more than that of the Labour Government. We have nothing to be ashamed of in our record, of which we are proud. This pride is reflected in the enormous increase in the morale of staff and those who are served, for example, in long-stay hospitals. Our record is without precedent in terms of generosity, and the Opposition have insulted the House by criticising cuts which they would do nothing to restore and which they do not even pretend they would restore. I beg the House to reject the motion and accept the Government's amendment.

Question put. That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 279.

Division No. 41.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Cordle, John
Green, Alan


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Grieve, Percy


Allason, James (Hemel Hemostead)
Cormack, Patrick
Griffiths, Eldon, Bury St. Edmunds)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Costain, A. P.
Grylls, Michael


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Critchley, Julian
Gummer, J. Selwyn


Astor, John
Crouch, David
Gurden, Harold


Atkins, Humphrey
Crowder, F. P.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Awdry, Daniel
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hall, Sir John (Wycombe)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid. Maj.-Gen. Jack
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Dean, Paul
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Batsford, Brian
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Dixon, Piers
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Bell, Ronald
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Haselhurst, Alan


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Drayson, Burnaby
Hastings, Stephen


Benyon, W.
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Havers, Sir Michael


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Dykes, Hugh
Hay, John


Biffen, John
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Hayhoe, Barney


Biggs-Davison, John
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Blaker, Peter
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hicks, Robert


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Higgins, Terence L.


Body, Richard
Emery, Peter
Hiley, Joseph


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Eyre, Reginald
HIM, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Farr, John
Hill, S. James A. (Southampton, Test)


Bowden, Andrew
Fell, Anthony
Holland, Philip


Bray. Ronald
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Holt, Miss Mary


Brewis, John
Fidler, Michael
Hordern, Peter


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Hornby, Richard


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fisher, Sir Nigel (Surbiton)
Horn8by-Smilh, RI. Hn. Dame Patricia


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Howell, David (Guildford)


Buchanan-Smith. Alick (Angus, N&M)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Buck, Antony
Fortescue, Tim
Hunt, John


Bullus, Sir Eric
Foster, Sir John
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Burden, F. A.
Fowler, Norman
Iremonger, T. L.


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray & Nairn)
Fox, Marcus
James, David


Carlisle, Mark
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St fford & stone)
Jenkin, Rt. Hn. Patrick (Woodford)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fry, Peter
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Cary, Sir Robert
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Jessel, Toby


Channon, Paul
Gardner, Edward
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Chapman, Sydney
Gibson-Watt, David
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Jopling, Michael


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Churchill, W. S.
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Goodhart, Philip
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Goodhew, Victor
Kershaw, Anthony


Cockeram, Eric
Gorst, John
Kimball, Marcus


Cooke, Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Coombs, Derek
Grant, Anthony (Harrow. C)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Cooper, A. E.
Gray, Hamish
Kinsey, J. R.




Kirk, Peter
Nott, John
Soref, Harold


Kitson, Timothy
Onslow, Cranley
Speed, Keith


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Spence, John


Knox, David
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Sproat, lain


Lamont, Norman
Osborn, John
Stainton, Keith


Lane, David
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stokes, John


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Parkinson, Cecil
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Lloyd. Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'fleld)
Peel, Sir John
Sutcliffe, John


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Percival, Ian
Tapsell, Peter


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Loveridge, John
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Luce, R. N.
Pink, R- Bonner
Tebbit, Norman


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Pounder, Rafton
Temple, John M.


MacArthur, Ian
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


McCrindle, R. A.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


McLaren, Martin
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S


Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Raison, Timothy
Trew, Peter


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Tugendhat, Christopher


Madel, David
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Maginnis, John E.
Redmond, Robert
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Reed Laurence (Bolton E.)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Marten, Neil
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Mather, Carol
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Waddington, David


Maude, Angus
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Rhys Williams Sir Brandon
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Mawby, Ray
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ridsdale Julian
Walters, Dennis


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Ward, Dame Irene


Mills, peter (Torrington)
Roborts Michael (Cardiff N)
warren Kennath


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Weatherill, Bernard


Miscampbell, Norman
Rodgers. Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Michell. Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rost, Peter
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Moate, Roger,
Royle, Anthony
Wiggin, Jerry


Molyneaux, James
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wilkinson, John


Money, Ernle
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Winterton, Nicholas


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Sainsbury, Timothy
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Monro, Hector
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Montgomery, Fergus
Scott, Nicholas
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


More, Jasper
Scott-Hopkins, James
Woodnutt, Mark


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Worsley, Sir Marcus


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Morrison, Charles
Shersby, Michael
Younger, Hn. George


Mudd, David
Simeons, Charles



Neave, Airey
Sinclair, Sir George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:



Skeet, T. H. H.
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Smith, Dudley (W'wlck & L'mington)
Mr. Paul Hawkins.


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael






NOES


Abse, Leo
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey


Albu, Austen
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Delargy, Hugh


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Campbell, 1. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Dempsey, James


Armstrong, Ernest
Cant, R. B.
Doig, Peter


Ashley, Jack
Carmichael, Neil
Dormand, J. D.


Ashton, Joe
Carter, Ray (Birminghn, Northfield)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)


Atkinson, Norman
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Bagier, Gordon, A. T.
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Driberg, Tom


Barnes, Michael
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Dunn, James A.


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Cohen, Stanley
Dunnett, Jack


Baxter, William
Coleman, Donald
Eadie, Alex


Beaney, Alan
Concannon, J. D.
Edelman, Maurice


Beith, A. J.
Conlan, Bernard
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Ellis, Tom


Bidwell, Sydney
Cronin, John
English, Michael


Bishop, E. S.
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Evans, Fred


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Faulds, Andrew


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.


Booth, Albert
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dalyell, Tarn
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Bottomley. Rt. Hn. Arthur
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Fletcher, Raymond (likeston)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Davidson, Arthur
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bradley, Tom
Davles, Denzil (Llanelly)
Foot, Michael


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Ford, Ben


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne. W.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Forrester, John


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Brown, Ronald (Shorerfitch & F'bury)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Freeson, Reginald


Buchan, Norman
Deakins, Eric
Freud, Clement







Galpern, Sir Myer
McBride, Neil
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Garrett, W. E.
McCartney, Hugh
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&R'dnor)


Gilbert, Dr. John
McElhone, Frank
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
McGuire, Michael
Roper, John


Golding, John
Machin, George
Rose, Paul B.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mackenzie, Gregor
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Gourlay, Harry
Mackie, John
Rowlands, Ted


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mackintosh, John P.
Sandelson, Neville


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Maclennan, Robert
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyre)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McNamara, J, Kevin
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Hamling, William
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Marks, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hardy, Peter
Marquand, David
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marsden, F.
Sillars, James


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Silverman, Julius


Hattersley, Roy
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Skinner, Dennis


Hatton, F.
Mayhew, Christopher
Small, William


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Meacher, Michael
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N)


Heffer, Eric S.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Hilton, W. S.
Mendelson, John
Stallard, A. W.


Hooson, Emlyn
Mikardo, Ian
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Horam, John
Millan, Bruce
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Huckfield, Leslie
Milne, Edward
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Stott, Roger


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Molloy, William
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hunter, Adam
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Swain, Thomas


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Taverne Dick


Janner, Greville
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Thomas. Rt. Hn. George (Card'ff. W.)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Murray, Ronald King
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oakes, Gordon
Tinn, James


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Ogden, Eric
Tomney, Frank


John, Brynmor
O'Halloran, Michael
Tope, Graham


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
O'Malley, Brian
Torney, Tom


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Oram, Bert
Tuck, Raphael


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Orbach, Maurice
Urwin, T. W.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Orme, Stanley
Varley, Eric G.


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Oswald, Thomas
Wainwright, Edwin


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Padley, Walter
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Kaufman, Gerald
Paget, R. T.
Wallace, George


Kelley, Richard
Palmer, Arthur
Watkins, David


Kerr, Russell
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Weitzman, David


Kinnock, Neil
Pardoe, John
Wellbeloved, James


Lambie, David
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lamborn, Harry
Pavitt, Laurie
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Lamond, James
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Whitehead, Phillip


Latham, Arthur
Pendry, Tom
Whitlock, William


Lawson, George
Perry, Ernest G.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Leadbitter, Ted
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lee, Rt, Hn. Frederick
Prescott, John
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Leonard, Dick
Price, William (Rugby)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Probert, Arthur
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Radice, Giles
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Woof, Robert


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)



Lipton, Marcus
Rhodes, Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Loughlin, Charles
Richard, Ivor
Mr. James Hamilton and


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put:—

The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 278.

Division No. 42.]
AYES
[10.13 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bray, Ronald


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bell, Ronald
Brewis, John


Aliason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Brinton, Sir Tatton


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Benyon, W.
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bruce-Gardyne, J.


Astor, John
Biffen, John
Bryan, Sir Paul


Atkins, Humphrey
Biggs-Davison, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)


Awdry, Daniel
Blaker, Peter
Buck, Antony


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Bulius, Sir Eric


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Body, Richard
Burden, F. A.


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Bossom, Sir Clive
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G (Moray & Nairn)


Batsford, Brian
Bowden, Andrew
Carlisle, Mark




Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Higgins, Terence L.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hiley, Joseph
Osborn, john


Channon, Paul
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Chapman, Sydney
Hill, S. James A. (Southampton, Test)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Holland, Philip
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Holt, Miss Mary
Parkinson, Cecil


Churchill, W. S.
Hordern, Peter
Peel, Sir John


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hornby, Richard
Percival, Ian


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Cockeram, Eric
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cooke, Robert
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pink, R. Bonner


Coombs, Derek
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Pounder, Rafton


Cooper, A. E.
Hunt, John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cordle, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Iremonger, T. L.
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Cormack, Patrick
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Costain, A. P.
James, David
Quennell. Miss J. M.


Critchley, Julian
Jenkin, Rt. Hn. Patrick (Woodford)
Raison, Timothy


Crouch, David
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Crowder, F. P.
Jessel, Toby
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Redmond, Robert


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid. Maj.-Gen. Jack
Jopling, Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Dean, Paul
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dixon, Piers
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Kimball, Marcus
Ridsdale, Julian


Drayson, G. B.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Dykes, Hugh
Kinsey, J. R.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Kirk, Peter
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kitson, Timothy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Elliot, Cap). Walter (Carshalton)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rost, Peter


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Knox, David
Royle, Anthony


Emery, Peter
Lamont, Norman
Russell, Sir Ronald


Eyre, Reginald
Lane, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Farr, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sainsbury, Timothy


Fell, Anthony
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott, Nicholas


Fidler, Michael
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut' nC' field)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Shelton William (Clapham)


Fisher Nigel (Surbiton)
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Shprsby Michael


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)
Loveridge, John
Simeons, Charles


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Luce, R. N.
Sinclair, sir George


Fookes, Miss Janet
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fortescue, Tim
MacArthur, Ian
Smith Dudley (W' wick & L'mington)


Foster, Sir John
McCrindle, R. A.
Soref, Harold


Fowler Norman
McLaren, Martin
Sport, lain


Fox, Marcus
Maclean, Sir Fitrozy
Speed, Keith


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Macmillan, Rt Hn Maurice (farnham)
Spence, John



Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Sproat, lain


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stainton, Keith


Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gardner, Edward
Made!, David
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Gibson-Watt, David
Maginnis, John E.
Stokes, John


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Marten, Neil
Sutcliffe, John


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Mather, Carol
Tapsell, Peter


Goodhart, Philip
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Goodhew, Victor
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Gorst, John
Mawby, Ray
Tebbit, Norman


Gower, Sir Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Temple, John M.


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Gray, Hamish
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Green, Alan
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Grieve, Percy
Miscampbell, Norman
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon. S.


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Grylls, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Trew, Peter


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Moate, Roger
Tugendhat, Christopher


Gurden, Harold
Molyneaux, James
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Money, Ernle
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hall, Sir John (Wycombe)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Monro, Hector
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Montgomery, Fergus
Waddington, David


Hannam, John (Exeter)
More, Jasper
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Morrison, Charles
Walters, Dennis


Haselhurst, Alan
Mudd, David
Ward, Dame Irene


Hastings, Stephen
Neave, Alrey
Warren, Kenneth


Havers, Sir Michael
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Weatherill, Bernard


Hay, John
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hayhoe, Barney
Nott, John
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Onslow, Cranley
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hicks, Robert
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Wiggin, Jerry







Wilkinson, John
Woodnutt, Mark



Winterton, Nicholas
Worsley, Marcus
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Younger. Hn. George
Mr. Paul Hawkins.


Woodhouse. Hn. Christopher






NOES


Abse Leo
Ellis, Tom
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Albu, Austen
English, Michael
McBride, Neil


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Evans, Fred
McCartney, Hugh


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Faulds, Andrew
McElhone, Frank


Armstrong, Ernest
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
McGuire, Michael


Ashley. Jack
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Machin, George


Ashton. Joe
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Atkinson, Norman
Fletcher, Raymond (likeston)
Mackie, John


Bagier, Gordon, A. T.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackintosh, John P.


Barnes, Michael
Foot, Michael
Maclennan, Robert


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ford, Ben
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Forrester, John
McNamara, J, Kevin


Baxter, William
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Beaney, Alan
Freeson, Reginald
Marks, Kenneth


Beith, A. J.
Freud, Clement
Marquand, David


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Galpern, Sir Myer
Marsden, F.


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Garrett, W. E.
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Bidwell, Sydney
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Bishop, E. S.
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mayhew, Christopher


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Golding, John
Meacher, Michael


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Booth, Albert
Gourlay, Harry
Mendelson, John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mikardo, Ian


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Millan, Bruce


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Bradley, Tom
Hamilton William (Fife, W)
Milne, Edward


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hamilng, William
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Molloy, William


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hardy, Peter
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Brown, Ronald (Shoredltch & F'bury)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Buchan Norman
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hatton, F.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Murray, Ronald King


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Oakes, Gordon


Cant, R. B.
Hilton, W. S.
Ogden, Eric


Carmichael, Neil
Hooson, Emlyn
O'Halloran, Michael


Carier Ray (Birminghn, Northfield)
Horam, John
O'Malley, Brian


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oram, Bert


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Huckfield, Leslie
Orbach, Maurice


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Orme, Stanley


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Oswald, Thomas


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Padley, Walter


Concannon, J. D.
Hunter, Adam
Paget, R. T.


Conlan, Bernard
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Palmer, Arthur


Corbet, Mrs. Frada
Janner, Greville
Pannen, Rt. Hn. Charles


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) Cronin, John
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Pardoe, John


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parker, John (Dagenham)




Pavitt Laurie


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
John, Brynmor
Pendry, Tom


Cunningham, Dr. J A. (Whitehaven)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Dalyell, Tarn
Jonnson, walter (Derby, S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jones, Barry (Flint, E)
Prescott, John


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, Denzll (Llanelly)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Radice, Giles


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kelley, Richard
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Deakins, Eric
Kerr, Russell
Richard, Ivor


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kinnock, Neil
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Delargy, Hugh
Lambie, David
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lamborn, Harry
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dempsey, James
Lamond, James
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&R'dnor)


Doig, Peter
Latham, Arthur
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Dormand, J. D.
Lawson, George
Roper, John


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Rose, Paul B.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Driberg, Tom
Leonard, Dick
Rowlands, Ted


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lestor, Miss Joan
Sandel8on, Neville


Dunn, James A.
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short. Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Edelman, Maurice
Lipton, Marcus
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton. N. E.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Loughlin, Charles
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)







Sillars, James
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Wellbeloved, James


Silverman, Julius
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Skinner, Dennis
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Small, William
Tinn, James
Whitehead, Phillip


Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Tomney, Frank
Whitlock, William


Spriggs, Leslie
Tope, Graham
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Stallard, A. W.
Torney, Tom
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Tuck, Raphael
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Urwin, T. W.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Varley, Eric G.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Wainwright, Edwin
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Stott, Roger
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Woof, Robert


Strang, Gavin
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)



Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Wallace, George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Watkins, David
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Swain, Thomas
Weitzman, David
Mr. James Hamilton


Taverne, Dick

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House endorses the Government's decision for the reasons given in the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 17th December to reduce during 1974–75 the demands on resources for the health and personal social services programme, without altering the substance of that programme.

VALUE ADDED TAX

10.27 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): I beg to move,
That the Value Added Tax (General) (No. 2) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 2151), a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th December, be approved.
It is now more than nine months since purchase tax and selective employment tax were abolished and value added tax was introduced. I think it is generally accepted that the changeover has been more smooth than many had forecast. This was, of course, partly due to the extensive process of consultation which we undertook before value added tax was introduced. But there can be no complete substitute for practical experience, and it is not surprising that in a small number of cases it should now be found desirable to make minor changes in the schedules which define the goods and services relieved from value added tax.
The present order introduces these changes. If we think of the original intention of the tax as a straight line, practical experience has shown up certain deviations from it—all of minor importance—some on one side favouring the Revenue and others on the other side. This order represents a line-straightening operation.
The most significant change in the order is probably the zero rating of further exports of services. The supplies in question include the preparation of payrolls for overseas companies, and similar computer operations, and performance as the legal representative of an overseas company, for example, in an arbitration action. Such services are, of course, taxed when supplied to United Kingdom companies, but in most cases the tax can be reclaimed as deductible input tax. Overseas companies cannot reclaim the tax and naturally have objected to bearing the burden of United Kingdom taxation. This is a point which the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) raised during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill in 1972. Now that experience has in-

dicated a method of defining with the necessary legal precision the services affected, the case for zero rating seems unquestionable.
If the House wishes, I will outline article by article the purpose of the various sections of the order. I think that perhaps it would be more appropriate to wait until hon. Members, who may have particular points to raise, have done so before I reply to the debate. I know there may be several matters of interest to hon. Members. The hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) corresponded with me recently about his interest in Article 9. I shall gladly go into the issues in detail and I shall do my best, as always, to elucidate them.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The Financial Secretary has introduced the order as though it were simply a small tidying-up operation. But from representations I have received from constituents it emerges that the order embodies a particularly mean example of retrospective legislation.
I have been approached about the matter by two religious halls of residence in my constituency, one a Catholic hall of residence and the other a Baptist hall of residence. I am assured that many other halls of residence attached to universities, though not part of them, are involved all over the country.
In the city of Manchester these halls are largely religious foundations. Although the halls of residence are not themselves part of a university, they provide accommodation for university students. For example Allen Hall, a Catholic hall of residence in my constituency, provides facilities exclusively for students of Manchester University.
Last January the warden of Allen Hall consulted the local representatives of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise and was advised that the hall of residence was exempt from VAT as far as its students were concerned. It came under the exemption provided in Group 6 of Schedule 5 to the Finance Act 1972. Nevertheless, despite that notification of exemption, in July Allen Hall received a letter saying that it was subject to VAT.
The governors appealed to the tribunal and on 6th November 1973 their appeal was heard and was upheld. They won


against the ruling that they should be liable for VAT. The tribunal ruled that the hall was not liable for VAT on supplies and services made to students of the university.
The Government did not like the ruling of the tribunal which they themselves had set up. Now, under Article 9 of the order, the Government are reversing the tribunal's ruling. A Government who prate about the sanctity of the rule of law and insist that we should all abide by the rules of the courts are not themselves hesitating to reverse what amounts to a legal ruling for their own purposes.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury wrote to me on the matter. His letter said that the change was being made
to clarify the position.
His further remarkable words were that it was being made
to ensure that there is not severe distortion of competition.
What on earth do those words mean in relation to this impost which is being imposed on these religious halls of residence? With whom are these halls of residence supposed to be competing? All of them are of the highest reputation. They are not fly-by-night institutions. They are bodies which have a high reputation throughout Manchester.
Allen Hall is owned by the Roman Catholic diocese. The warden of Hulme Hall, another hall which is not affected by this change in the law, has written to me about Allen Hall as follows:
 During its 12 years of existence Allen Hall has built up a fine reputation for good quality accommodation, a sociable environment for a varied mixture of students, and an outgoing attitude of service to the community. Despite having to pay rates and full maintenance costs from revenue (compared with the University-owned halls which are subsidized in these respects) Allen Hall has, by skilful management, managed to keep its charges on a par with those at other Halls. The imposition of VAT would make this impossible, would deter most students from applying to Allen Hall, and might very well lead to the closure of the Hall.
Another example, the Northern Baptist College, is a recognised college of the Faculty of Theology of Manchester University. Its principal has written to me:
In many ways we can be properly regarded as integral parts of the University. We are

officially recognised for purposes of residence and appear in the University's information about accommodation alongside its own halls. In addition, we are recognised for teaching purposes by the Faculty of Theology and members of our staffs lecture within the University itself. We are therefore closely identified both with the University's educational pursuits and those opportunities for residence which are thought to be a desirable feature of a university course. A student in one of our halls, not in training for the Christian ministry, receives exactly the same services as students in University-owned halls and in some respects we provide added advantages from an educational point of view by way of extensive working libraries as well as tutorial assistance. It seems unreasonable that a student should be treated differently when it comes to finance, since we would have to pass on to him the added tax, or that we as colleges should in effect be penalised for pursuing precisely those educational purposes which are normally exempt from value-added tax.
Nevertheless, these two institutions will have to pay VAT, for example on student meals.
Colleges may be compelled because of these taxes to increase their fees—

Mr. Higgins: Would the hon. Gentleman repeat the last sentence he gave? I am not sure that I caught it correctly, and it is rather important.

Mr. Kaufman: Does the Minister mean the quotation from the letter sent to me by the Principal of the Northern Baptist College?

Mr. Higgins: I am seeking to be helpful. Could the hon. Gentleman simply repeat the last sentence or two before I intervened?

Mr. Kaufman: My last sentence or two were based upon the letter which the Minister himself sent to me and which I have in my possession—the letter dated 28th January which I received today.
What I was saying, based upon the Minister's letter, was that the colleges will have to pay VAT on catering, which I take it includes student meals. The colleges have written to tell me that they may be compelled, as a result of this extra taxation, to increase their fees to the students. They might well price themselves out of the students' price range.

Mr. Higgins: Could I be clear that there was not a slip of the tongue? The hon. Member is talking now about the


colleges. Does he mean by that the university, or does he mean the halls of residence?

Mr. Kaufman: The halls of residence, one of which is a recognised college, the Northern Baptist College. I am sorry if I confused the two, and I am grateful to the Minister.
They have also written to tell me that they may have to consider whether they can stay open at all, since they are already in difficulties. In Manchester there is already a terrible shortage of student accommodation for a growing university. This in itself is exacerbating the appalling housing problem in my constituency. The university is not in my constituency but it abuts my constituency, which has one of the 20 worst housing problems in the country, according to Government census figures. The need for student accommodation splays over into my constituency and increases the difficulty there.
For example the warden of Hulme Hall, in writing to support the case of Allen Hall, wrote to me last week:
I am growing increasingly concerned at the effect which continual enlargement of the University is having on housing for ordinary Manchester people. A small terraced house in this area can bring the landlord a weekly income of £16 or more if let to four students—a rent which would be prohibitive for a private family interested in a house of that size. Any discouragement of purpose-built accommodation for students can only worsen the general housing shortage.
That is the considered judgment of a man who has great experience in this matter in the area. It is a likely consequence of what I can only describe as a mean little piece of legislation. I appeal to the Financial Secretary even at this stage to withdraw that part of the order.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Joel Barnett: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) on the powerful case he has presented this evening. I know something of Manchester, having been born there, and representing a constituency 15 miles north-east of the city I also have some constituents who go to Manchester University, though not as many as my hon. Friend, and I know something of the terrible shortage of student accommodation and housing accommodation

generally of which my hon. Friend has spoken.
To me a serious anomaly appears to be perpetrated here. I think I understand what the Financial Secretary is getting at. He is seeking to treat these halls of residence on exactly the same level as any other student accommodation provided by a private landlord. That is what I believe he means by distortion of competition. I hope I am wrong, because if that is what he means it makes my hon. Friend's case even more powerful. I hope that the Financial Secretary will be prepared to take the order back because a serious problem will clearly be created if specially-built halls of residence are treated in this way and quite differently from a hall of residence provided by the college authorities.
After all, we all know what the Catholic authorities and the Baptist authority that my hon. Friend has referred to do in these circumstances and we should be seeking to encourage and not discourage them. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. There is a strange situation here that where meals are provided in that kind of hall they must have VAT imposed on them. The alternative for the students is to find some kind of crummy residence where they simply pay the rent and buy the food, making up the meals for themselves without paying VAT on them. That is the worst kind of alternative
My hon. Friend pointed out that the students would also be taking up accommodation which is desperately needed by the city of Manchester. This is a most important case and I hope that the Financial Secretary will give us a better reply than he seems to have given in correspondence to my hon. Friend.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. Higgins: I take it that there are no points arising on other articles that hon. Members wish to raise with me.

Mr. Barrett: There are.

Mr. Higgins: In that case, perhaps the hon. Member would care to spell them out for me. It might be more for the convenience of the House if I replied only once—indeed, it might be out of order if I sought to do so more than once.

Mr. Barnett: I want to put a few questions to the hon. Gentleman. I am delighted to learn that there is no complete substitute for practical experience, bearing in mind that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and I were telling the hon. Gentleman that fact for, so it seemed to me, days, night and months throughout our discussions on value added tax when it was first introduced. I am fascinated to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to "line-straightening". I am always suspicious when I hear that the Government are proposing to introduce line-straightening, especially when they take the trouble to do it by introducing an order of five pages.
The explanatory note tells us that the order
removes from Group 2 a redundant reference to mineral waters".
Originally, the reference was not only to distilled water but also to
deionised water and water of similar purity.
What sort of line-straightening is taking place there?
Then we come to repairs and maintenance. I notice that (a) and (b) have been added and (c) states that item 2 does not include
the supply of any services in the course of the construction or alteration of any civil engineering work within the grounds or garden of a building used or to be used wholly or mainly as a private residence".
What "fiddles" have been going on here to justify line-straightening? Has an enormous amount of VAT been avoided through "fiddles"? If not, why have the Government taken the trouble to introduce this provision?
Under Article 5 I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for covering the point I made nearly two years ago. I cannot recall precisely what I said on that occasion, but the Government are now adding the words "person present". Why? What has happened to justify their inclusion now? What have the Government learned from practice? How many hundreds of thousands of pounds or more has been lost in the meantime?
In the changes relating to transport, why has the weight been slightly reduced for the purpose of zero rating?
Previously houseboats were not exempt; now they are to be exempt. I

recall that, when the hon. Gentleman was originally proposing to exempt caravans used for holiday accommodation, I asked how he would find out whether a caravan was being used for holiday accommodation. Once again, in the order we have the expression
holiday accommodation including any accommodation advertised or held out as such.
I hope that the Customs and Excise can determine when a houseboat has been held out as holiday accommodation, but I doubt it. I have a feeling that next year or later we shall have another line-straightening exercise.
Those are the few brief points I have to make, and I shall be pleased to have an answer from the hon. Gentleman.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Higgins: As the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) knows, on such orders it is easy to ask brief questions but not quite so easy to give brief answers. Perhaps it would be convenient for me to take up the detailed points he raised before going on to the more general points put by the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman).
The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton raised the question of deionised water. This was added by the Value Added Tax (General) (No. 1) Order 1973 because it is comparable to distilled water, which was charged at tax at the standard rate. Essentially, therefore, we are now removing an otiose provision.
As the hon. Gentleman said, we have debated at some length the question of caravans and how to define a caravan for purposes of holiday accommodation. We have received representations about houseboats and it seems to us appropriate that we should extend zero rating to them, although, as in the former case, it is necessary to make provisions in respect of those which are used for holiday accommodation.
On the question of the weight limit on ships and aircraft, I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the fact that, as part of the operation, it also seemed appropriate to metricate and slightly alter the limit. I queried this point and I am assured that it does not have any great significance as regards the scope of the tax.
The hon. Gentleman referred, I think, on the question of repairs and maintenance. This is an anti-avoidance device necessitated by a blatant system of avoidance which was advertised as such. I shall not quote the name of the firm in order not to give it a "commercial". Let me refer to it as "Bloggs' Scheme of VAT and how to avoid it".
I turn to the important point raised by the hon. Member for Ardwick and reinforced by the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton. There is no question of doubting the high reputation of any of the organisations to which the hon. Member for Ardwick referred. That is not the point at issue between us. He referred to several organisations and, as he pointed out, we have been in correspondence on this matter. He referred to retrospective legislation. For reasons which I shall explain, I do not think that the order can be fairly described in that sense. It would, however, be helpful if I were to fill in the general background.
Under the law there is no general relief for VAT for students as such. After much consideration, however, it was decided to exempt from VAT the essential activities of schools, universities and so on. Any borderline is likely to create some anomalies, as the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton frequently points out, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer felt that confining this exemption to supplies by educational establishments anomalies should keep these to a minimum. The creation of some anomalies is inevitable the moment one draws a line. The only way to avoid that would be to give no relief from VAT, but the Chancellor felt it right that some relief should be given to schools and universities.
Item 2 of Group 6 of Schedule 5 to the Finance Act 1972 exempts from VAT
the supply of any goods or services incidental to the provision of any education included in Item 1"—
that is, Item 1 of the group. It was always intended that this exemption should apply only where the goods or services are supplied by the provider of the exempt education, such as board and lodging provided by a boarding school to its pupils or by a university to its students in its own halls of residence. The exemption is not intended to apply

to hostels for students where the accommodation is not provided by the school, university or other institution supplying the exempt education.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in Schedule 5 to the Finance Act 1972 there is specific reference to the provision of education if it is of a kind provided at school or university and if it is provided otherwise than for profit. That surely covers the question of halls of residence.

Mr. Higgins: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. That was the reason why I intervened in the case to which he referred, because I thought there was a slip of the tongue in the use of the word "college". The terms of the Act are drawn precisely. How it applies in any particular case, if there is no doubt about the wording of the Act, depends on the facts of the case. I cannot tell, without hearing full details of the particular case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, whether that would be regarded as "education" in the narrow sense. It would depend whether the institution were a college and were providing education of a kind normally provided by a university not for profit. If that were so, the situation would be different from a case where it was simply an organisation providing accommodation or catering. If the hon. Member for Ardwick will send me details, I shall as far as possible look into the matter. I emphasise that it would depend on the facts of the case.
I should now like to pursue the main line of my argument which in some respects I think the hon. Gentleman will find helpful. I was saying that the exemption was not intended to apply to hostels for students where the hostels were not part of the school, university or other institution supplying the exempt education. The point to which the hon. Gentleman refers is whether an institution is supplying exempt education, not whether it is supplying services related to that exempt education. I hope I have made myself clear.
The interpretation of the law was upheld by one VAT tribunal in unanimous judgment, although it criticised the law as "lacking in clarity" on the point. However, another tribunal in hearing an appeal on this point disagreed and took


the view that the exemption applied to goods and services supplied to an educational institution or—I underline the word "or"—to pupils and students. The tribunal went further. For example, in the case of a retail stationer supplying both students and members of the general public, the tribunal envisaged that the exemption covered all supplies made by a stationer supplying mainly—I emphasise the word "mainly" students. The order is necessary to clarify the position. Nothing I say should in any way whatever be taken as a criticism of the tribunal. It is its responsibility to interpret the law as it sees fit. The point at issue is whether the drafting of the law is correct and whether it is necessary to clarify the position.
I wish to spell out the point at issue. If one were to accept the view which I have summarised as the view of the second tribunal, there would be distortion of competition and the creation of numerous anomalies. I have already said that, once one gives any relief and draws a line, one is likely to create some anomalies. But if we were to move the line in the direction which the hon. Gentleman suggests, the situation would be a great deal worse.
The problem in explaining it is that there are two lines, if one accepts the view of the tribunal which I have just quoted. There would be a situation where difficulties would arise between hostels for students not provided by institutions supplying the exempt education, and other commercial institutions. If we went all the way with the view from the tribunal which I have just quoted, there would also be distortion between different shops and between different customers. I said that there were two lines. In fact there are three lines—if we accept the tribunal's view—between the halls of residence not provided by those supplying the exempt education, ordinary accommodation or catering, and between different shops and between different customers.
Let me expand on each of them, and perhaps I might take them in the reverse order. I take first the distortion between customers. In the case of the stationer's shop, whether a customer were or were not charged VAT on the stationery that he purchased would depend on whether

that stationer happened to be mainly supplying students. This would create a bizarre situation and not one that we could accept.
The other line would be the distortion between one type of shop and another. Clearly the shop which was serving mainly students would be relieved of tax and that which was not would carry it. That would not be a reasonable line to draw.
Finally I come to the situation between the hostel providing accommodation but not being provided by an institution providing exempt education, and an ordinary commercial organisation, whether it be providing accommodation or suuplying catering.

The question is probably in practice very largely one of catering rather than of accommodation. The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton said he was glad that we had learned from practical experience. I know of no way of getting practical experience of anything until it has happened. This is a case where we have learned that there are some practical difficulties and that we ought to put them right. It is, as I say, largely a question of catering.

The problem with catering is that a great many private organisations not necessarily disreputable in any way, as the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton seemed to suggest, depend substantially on students. Some may be almost entirely supplying students' catering. But we could not accept a position where the only people who got their catering free happened to be students. There are many others—young people who are not students, pensioners and so on—who might like to be placed in that favourable position, and it would be unfair. Let us take the case of a hamburger stall next door to a university. It would be very unfair if an organisation said to be run for charitable purposes were not to be taxed and the hamburger stall were. There are some anomalies in the giving of relief. The difficulty is to know where the line should be drawn.

The other point is this, and I have spelt it out in a letter to the hon. Member for Ardwick, but as a number of hon. Members have written to me about it and there may be other letters on the way it may be as well to spell out this point.

The order is intended to correct the position as regards Schedule 5, Group 6, and supplies which would be liable at the standard rate if they did not fall within this group, such as supplies of catering to residents, will now be taxable.

The second tribunal to which I have referred also held that the provision of accommodation by Allen Hall was exempt from VAT under Schedule 5, Group 1—"licence to occupy land"—because the hostel was not
a hotel, inn, boarding house or similar establishment

excluded from that exemption.

The tribunal drew a clear distinction between what might be called the bare provision of board and lodging which student hostels, not being institutions providing exempt education, might be supplying and that supplied by boarding houses. This provision of accommodation is, so to speak, a common feature of both the kind of hostel to which the hon. Gentleman referred and a boarding house.

The tribunal sought to distinguish the hostel of the kind mentioned by the hon. Gentleman and it referred in particular to the selection of students, the control over students and the corporate life which might exist in such an institution. This distinction, and the exemption from the provision of accommodation at such hostels under the tribunal's judgment, is being accepted and, I stress, is not affected by the new order.

Having said that, I should refer to a point which the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) will no doubt comprehend. The exemption for accommodation is not necessarily an unmixed blessing if hon. Gentlemen will refresh their memories about the distinction between exemption and being taxed, for example. The law allows an appreciable reduction in respect of the value for value added tax on board and lodging for lengths of stay exceeding four weeks. Some halls of residence may find that the tax that they have levied in respect of their charges for lodging, as distinct from board, is not much greater, and perhaps less, than the tax they have paid on the inputs—their purchases of linen, new furnishings, cleaning materials and so on. On balance, therefore, it may be preferable for such a hall not to seek exemption in respect of accommodation which

would deprive it of its right to deduct the relevant input value added tax that it had paid on relevant purchases but to continue to charge for board and lodging as a single taxable supply, with a reduced value for stays of over four weeks, and to deduct or to reclaim input tax.

I hope that I have explained—I am always anxious to give a full reply—the reasons which prompted us to introduce this part of the order. It is not doing any more than restoring and clarifying the position as it was always thought and intended to be. We are prepared to accept the aspect of the tribunal's decision, about accommodation on the lines I have outlined in my concluding remarks. That might be a mixed blessing. No doubt the organisations concerned will do the arithmetic and decide whether one situation is better than the other.

Mr. Kaufman: If this part of the order restores the position to what it was thought to be, may I ask why it was that in the first place the Commissioners of Customs and Excise told the wardens of Allen Hall that they were not subject to VAT? It was only later that, having thought about it, they wrote to them and said that they were subject to VAT. In January 1973 they wrote and said that they were not subject to it. Therefore, this part of the order is restoring the situation not to the original position but to the second position. Why not restore it to the original position?

Mr. Higgins: I will look into that point. Certainly the position always has been as I have outlined it. Indeed, I have had considerable correspondence on this matter with similar organisations to those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, though not the particular ones he mentioned, at a much earlier stage in the course of the tax. As a result I became familiar with many of the problems that line-drawing in this area creates.
On balance, I think that the line we originally decided—I stress that it was our original decision—was right, for the reasons I have given, and it is therefore right that we should pass the order, both in this respect and in others that have been mentioned. By and large, it is intended to straighten out the various lines in the light of direct experience.
The order comes into effect on 1st March 1974 and Customs and Excise will circulate in mid-February to every trader registered for VAT a copy of the new quarterly publication Value Added Tax News, which will contain details of the changes introduced by the order on the assumption that the House will approve it tonight.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Barnett: All hon. Members present will have noted with interest the Financial Secretary's statement that he has clarified the position. I am sure that what he said will be clear to every hon. Member. The answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), who asked why a local office said one thing and then another, is that all local offices in the country are saying different things because they find it as difficult to understand, as does the Financial Secretary and everybody else, which is one of the difficulties of this complicated tax.
The Financial Secretary mentioned the distortion that was possible without the change. I would have thought that there was still distortion inasmuch as it is still possible that in halls of residence provided by a university a service may be given that is exempt from tax while in halls of residence provided by a religious body or a non-profit-making organisation the service will be subject to the tax. I should have thought that the line needed still more straightening.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. Higgins: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about local value added tax offices. But the implication of what he said is clear: that there is only one place at which to draw the line, which means giving no relief at all. If that is what he says, we are interested to hear it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Value Added Tax (General) (No. 2) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 2151), a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th December, be approved.

CROFTING REFORM (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Order Paper states that this matter is
 To be decided forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 67(4).
That Standing Order is clear. It says:
When the order for the second reading of any such bill has been read"—
that is, a Scottish Bill considered in principle in the Scottish Grand Committee—
a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown, 'That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee ', and the question thereupon shall be put forthwith: Provided that this paragraph shall not apply in the case of any bill to the second reading of which notice of an amendment has been given by not less than six Members".
That assumes that six Members will have the time to get together and table a motion.
Consideration of the Bill was concluded in the Scottish Grand Committee only on Thursday, a few hours before the Leader of the House told us what would be the business for this week. This item was not included, so those who heard the Leader of the House and those who read what he said had no reason to think that they needed time to table a motion.
It was not until Friday that the Journal of the House stated that consideration of the Bill had been completed on Thursday and it therefore required that six Members should decide on Friday to table a motion if it was to appear on the Order Paper today. The chances of that were slight, and so this seems to be a denial of the rights of ordinary Members. If a motion had appeared, it would have been a starred motion and, therefore, from the point of view of the Chair, it would have needed to be overlooked.
I am concerned about the fact that the first intimation that any hon. Member, I presume, had of this matter coming up was when he read the Order Paper for today. Therefore, the right of six Members getting together and deciding to table a motion was denied to them. That is an indication that the Government tend to take for granted the right of Members in this matter.
Only a certain number of Members are members of the Scottish Grand Committee. Other Members may be waiting to find out about this matter. That is one reason for these rights to be given to six Members. But they have to be given time, otherwise they cannot exercise their right.
The second right is that of members of the Scottish Grand Committee who may be dissatisfied with the Government's handling of the Bill. It is no secret that certain of us were very dissatisfied with the handling of the Bill by the Under-Secretary of State on that occasion. From that point of view, it is not in keeping with the spirit and resolution of the Standing Order that this matter should be brought on quite so soon.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I take the right hon. Gentleman's point quite well. It is not really a question for the Chair to decide because there is no procedural problem as far as the Chair is concerned in this matter. Technically there has been time for it, but practically it may be a different matter. The practical side of it is a matter not for the Chair but for the Government. It is for the Government as to whether they take the necessary steps. It is not for me to adjudicate upon the matter because for the Chair there is no procedural problem in progressing with the motion as it stands on the Order Paper now. Whatever the Government can do, I cannot help the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ross: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Who will protect the rights of ordinary back-bench Members of both sides of the House if the Government know quite well that the situation is practically impossible? What is the use of this matter being provided for in Standing Orders if the Government can disregard the practicalities of it? The Leader of the House has a responsibility in this matter. If he had announced last Thursday that the matter was coming up, that would have alerted people to their rights and would have allowed them to exercise them. But he did not do that. From a practical point of view, it is very slick of the Government to do this. It puts the Chair in a difficult position. Technically, Mr. Deputy Speaker, your ruling is correct. From

the point of view of the rights of back benchers, however, they have been overridden.
It is right that the matter should be raised, if only to get some explanation from the Government as to why they have done this and to alert the House as to the way, in respect of Second Reading Committees, the Government could behave and could deny back benchers their rights.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Again, I understand exactly what the right hon. Gentleman means, but the terms of the Standing Order, which is what the Chair has to administer, have been carried out. Whether they have been carried out in the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman would like to see them carried out is not a question for me. I am ordered by the Standing Orders to put this Question forthwith, and I must proceed to do that.

Mr. Ross: But realising that the Government are open to the charge of having been far too slick in respect of this matter, surely, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is open to the Government to withdraw this Second Reading motion and to table it again on, for instance, Wednesday.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I beg to move.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is—

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman has not moved the motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The motion will have to be moved.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that he begs to move, That the Bill be committed to the Scottish Grand Committee?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Grand Committee.

Question agreed to.

Mr. Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In putting the Question, you said "Grand Committee". The Committee is the Scottish Standing Committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. It is the Scottish Standing Committee.

Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 67 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland), That the Bill be committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.

Question agreed to.

Bill (deemed to have been read a Second time) committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.

CROFTING REFORM (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to confer new rights on crofters and cottars to acquire subjects tenanted or occupied by them; to confer rights on crofters to share in the value of land resumed by landlords; to make further provision as to financial assistance for crofters, cottars and certain owner-occupiers of crofts; to amend the law with respect to common grazings; to extend the powers of the Scottish Land Court; to make provision for pensions and compensation for members of the Crofters Commission; and for connected purposes, it is expedient to authorise—
1. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act in the expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under—

(a) section 3(10) of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911;
(b) section 22(2) or 31(1) of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955;
(c) Schedule 1 to the said Act of 1955 in the payment of pensions or compensation to members of the Crofters Commission;

2. The payment into the Consolidated Fund of all sums received by the Secretary of State by virtue of the said Act of the present Session.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

11.20 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I am disappointed that we have had no explanation of the resolution. However I am not surprised, as the Under-Secretary did not know what motion he was supposed to move.

Mr. Ian Mac Arthur: Come off it.

Mr. Ross: I am on my feet and I shall stay on them.
This is a simple motion and the Standing Order makes it clear what is in order. I gave the Under-Secretary the opportunity to withdraw it. It is obvious that he needed more time to consider it and he might have been wiser to have withdrawn it. This is one of the reasons why we were dissatisfied with the handling of the Bill on consideration of principle.
The resolution is fairly clear in its wording but it requires some explanation, in two respects. First, I want to know how much Government expenditure is involved. Secondly, I should like to know the extent to which it will limit us in tabling amendments which might be desirable in Committee. Anyone who is concerned with Standing Committee procedure knows that, unless an amendment is consistent with the Money Resolution, it is out of order. It is therefore important to examine the resolution to see whether the Government have deliberately drawn it narrowly or, if it is not their intention to crib the Scottish Standing Committee, whether they are prepared to interpret the resolution loosely, although that may be a matter for the Chairman of the Standing Committee rather than for the Government, or whether they would be prepared to introduce another resolution. Only a Government can table a Money Resolution to cover amendments they may think to be desirable.
The resolution states:
it is expedient to authorise—
1. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act in the expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under—

(a) section 3(10) of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911".

How much do the Government think they will have to pay out annually under that head? It continues:

"(b) section 22(2) or 31(1) of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955".

I believe that these are payments payable in respect of loans and grants for crofters' housing, and there is an extension to cover the new position of owner-occupiers. How much is involved annually? This will give us an indication of how the Government see the whole matter working.
The resolution also refers to
Schedule 1 to the said Act of 1955 in the payment of pensions or compensation to members of the Crofters Commission".
How much is involved there? What is the justification? The commission has been in existence since the passing of the Act about 18 years ago. Have any members retired and not received compensation.' Would it be in order to pay compensation to them under the resolution? If it is discovered that it is intended only for existing and future members, will it be in order for the Government to consider the position of members who have already retired? It would be unfair if we were to discover an injustice and the resolution did not allow us to put it right.
Next we read of
The payment into the Consolidated Fund of all sums received by the Secretary of State by virtue of the said Act of the present Session.
As far as I can see, those sums are received in respect of the sale of crofts to those who have their crofts on land owned by the Secretary of State. That is a considerable number. In the opinion of the Department, how many are likely to take advantage of the Bill? There must have been certain soundings.
There are other moneys that must be paid out by the Secretary of State, but as far as I can see no authority is given specifically within the resolution for him to pay out the additional compensation. A change is made in the compensation procedure in respect of land that has been resumed by the Secretary of State, as for land resumed by any other owner. Having bought his croft from the Secretary of State, the crofter still has a right in respect of the value of land which is to be developed, and in respect of that there is a formula within the Bill stating that the Secretary of State will pay the crofter a percentage of that value. There is no specific authority in the resolution for that to be done. I presume that it is unnecessary, but what statute makes it unnecessary? These are additional moneys. It is a completely new power in respect of compensation, and I should like to know exactly what the assessment is.
The Financial Memorandum to the Bill states that what the Secretary of State will have to pay out can be met by what is coming in. But there must still be

an authority to pay out any moneys paid by the Government. How is that covered?
Mention is made in the first paragraph of the resolution of
certain owner-occupiers of crofts".
But there are existing owner-occupiers—I think about 750—who have not got certain rights. What exactly is the limitation of that phrase? Are the rights to be given to existing owner-occupiers of crofts as well as to future owner-occupiers who use the rights under the Bill?
Additional duties are placed upon the Land Court, which will take over certain duties of the Crofters Commission and of the Secretary of State. What additional expenditure is likely to be involved here? In the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, which of course is not part of the Bill, an indication is given that as many as 12 posts might be involved, but there is certainly nothing in this Money Resolution about the amount of expenditure involved.
I believe that in Clause 10 power is given to require the Secretary of State to purchase croft buildings in certain circumstances. This will mean a further expenditure of money by the Secretary of State, and I see no mention in the Money Resolution of authority to do that.
Then there is the question of legal aid. I do not think there is any doubt that crofters are not the wealthiest section of the community in Scotland, and the question of exercising their rights in respect of disagreements with the landlord—who may be the Secretary of State—and in connection with many other aspects of the Bill may well involve them in considerable charges. What rights do they have in relation to legal aid? I do not think they have any. I should certainly like it to be in order to move an amendment in Committee providing for the further expenditure of money under the legal aid Act. As I read the Money Resolution, I do not think this would be in order. I do not want any crofter to be inhibited in exercising to the full his rights under the Bill.
I said in the debate on the consideration of principle that it was an extension of the rights of crofters, but I do not want them to be inhibited by the cost of litigation and by the cost of what some people have thought to be a formality


but in respect of which I saw figures about a year ago of from £30 to £80. Such figures may be beyond the purse of crofters. I am concerned lest, if we pass this Money Resolution tonight, we might be denying ourselves the right to make a desirable amendment, because there is no provision in the Money Resolution for the extension of legal aid to crofters in pursuit of their rights.
One matter on which there will be controversy during the Committee stage is that of mineral rights and sporting rights. We have already had indications of that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I am afraid I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that he cannot bring that sort of matter into the debate. He must confine himself—I think he appreciates it—to the terms of the resolution and he must not refer to matters which would involve legislation or other extraneous topics.

Mr. Ross: I think I am right in saying that I am entitled to raise matters which would be the subject of acceptable amendments to the Bill but which would be ruled out by this Money Resolution. One of the most important points in the Bill is the question, owner-occupation having been established, what happens in the case of a resale. The Crofters Commission and others have suggested that there must be a pre-emptive right to purchase.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: So that we can be quite clear, because I want the right hon. Gentleman to have every chance to do what he is entitled to do, may I point out that Erskine May says quite clearly:
Debate on a motion for a financial resolution is confined to the terms of the resolution itself and must not be extended to the related bill, nor to the merits of matters excluded from the resolution.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman will follow me.

Mr. Ross: But we are being asked to agree to the Money Resolution. One of the reasons for a decision to vote against it would be that the resolution was too restrictive. I am asking whether it is so restrictive in this case as not to allow the Secretary of State to purchase the sporting rights and then hand them to a township or, in the case of a pre-emptive purchase, for the Secretary of State to

purchase a croft that is to be resold and then administer it in such a way as to benefit the township.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is that in the Money Resolution?

Mr. Ross: It is not in the resolution, but I want to know whether it is ruled out by the resolution. There are many things that are not in the resolution which may be covered already by the powers of the Secretary of State. I have mentioned some tonight which are in the Bill and which are responsibilities being accepted by the Secretary of State. I want to know whether these things should have been in the resolution or, if they are not in, whether we shall be ruled out of order if we seek by amendment to give the Secretary of State some other powers.
Let us take the example I have mentioned in respect of the Secretary of State's responsibility to purchase buildings. There is nothing in the Money Resolution which says it, but in the Bill it is provided that it is his duty. If the Under-Secretary assures me that it does not need to be in the resolution, I shall be quite satisfied. That leads on to the fact that I can put further responsibilities upon the Secretary of State by amendment. I am sure we shall all be happy about that, because we want the widest interpretation of the Money Resolution to enable us to amend the Bill in the most constructive way for the benefit of crofters.
I believe that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) raised the question of mineral rights. The Liberal Party is showing its usual interest in the Bill by its complete absence. There are times when the Liberals say that they are terribly interested, but if they want to make certain amendments to the Bill they should be here questioning the terms of the Money Resolution. They are not.
Paragraph 2 of the resolution refers to
The payment into the Consolidated Fund of all the sums received by the Secretary of State by virtue of the said Act of the present Session.
There is no doubt that all sums received by the Secretary of State must go into the Consolidated Fund. Surely I am not out of order in asking what sums are involved, and how much.
If we are given some indication of the amount coming in in respect of the


number of crofts and croft houses that the Secretary of State will sell to the crofters on the land, we might have some indication of what the cost will be to the crofter. Many crofters would like to know exactly what it will cost them, first, for the croft and, secondly, for the croft house and garden land.
The Secretary of State is the biggest landowner in the Highlands. I am surprised that the Under-Secretary shows such a distaste for nationalisation, bearing in mind that so much of the land is already nationalised. He should have a fair idea of what is happening to his own estates. Can he give an indication of the number of crofts and croft houses that are likely to be concerned in payments into the Consolidated Fund? Will he indicate the average cost of crofts in Inverness, Skye and other areas where the Secretary of State has crofting policies? That information would help us to understand what will happen under paragraph 2.
I do not ask these questions in any carping manner. I ask them because I think we have the right to this information before we start the Committee stage, to ensure that we have the kind of freedom of constructive discussion that all hon. Members want. On Second Reading I declared that I wanted to improve the Bill for the crofters. I am a reasonable man, but if I let slip the opportunity of raising questions on the Money Resolution I might deny not only myself but other hon. Members the opportunity of securing amendments.
We are not entering into the Committee stage for some time. If the Under-Secretary should have second thoughts, he has plenty of time in which to consider the possibility of withdrawing the Money Resolution and re-presenting it before we reach the Committee stage.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: I was glad to hear the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) say that he was not approaching the Money Resolution in any carping spirit. I was particularly glad to hear him say that because, frankly, I thought he was carping. The whole tone of his speech suggested yet again that he was approaching the Money Resolution with the intention of making a nit-picking study of its entrails in a way which we are

accustomed to from him, here and elsewhere.
The Money Resolution is drawn in the widest possible terms. I accept, of course, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that we must be satisfied that any Money Resolution is drawn in terms which will not in any way restrict the framing of amendments at the Committee stage. But this Money Resolution is drawn in very wide terms indeed.
I hope that we shall not be seeking to make changes in a spirit of inhibition which would restrict the new rights which the Bill will confer on crofters in Scotland. The purpose and spirit of the Bill and the Money Resolution is illustrated by the very words on crofters and cottars,
to acquire subjects tenanted or occupied by them",
That, surely, is a purpose which all reasonable people in Scotland would applaud. It also uses the words:
to confer rights on crofters to share in the value of land resumed by landlords.
Again, that surely is a proposition with which all reasonable people would agree.
The Money Resolution goes on to refer to making
further provision as to financial assistance for crofters, cottars and certain owner-occupiers of crofts.
In view of those terms of the Money Resolution, I find myself at a loss to comprehend the right hon. Gentleman's motive in making what I can only regard as his carping criticisms of a particularly generously drawn Money Resolution.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for precise figures of the cost to the Exchequer of the Bill. I know why he asked that, but surely it is not reasonable to ask for a precise definition of what public moneys might be involved when one cannot prejudge the valuations which might be placed on these lands. I should regret it if lurking at the back of the right hon. Gentleman's mind were any wish to restrict the rights of crofters or the benefits conferred on them by the Bill in terms of sharing in the value of land, which is specifically referred to in the Money Resolution.
I do not approach this subject in the same restrictionist spirit as the right hon. Gentleman. The Money Resolution seems to be drawn widely enough to make any reasonable amendment possible. I


do not take the same parsimonious approach as the right hon. Gentleman seems to take. I believe in giving to crofters the new rights and freedoms which are conferred by the Bill and the Money Resolution, and I believe that they are welcomed by crofters and by all reasonable people in Scotland.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will now resolve to stop the time wasting to which he is so prone and that we will get on without any further unnecessary delay to approve a Bill which transforms the position of crofters in Scotland.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. Gavin Strang: I should like forcibly to add my protest to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) about the procedure the Government have adopted of forcing this Money Resolution through so fast that, as you yourself said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it has not been possible for us to exercise our democratic right to a debate on the Floor of the House. You have acknowledged that, although technically it might have been possible, in practice it was virtually impossible, as the Government know perfectly well.
One of the main additional costs that the Government will have to bear as a result of this legislation is for the extra personnel and administrative expenses of the Land Court, which will have important new functions in fixing the price the crofters will have to pay and—assuming that the Bill is not amended—in deciding whether or not land can be taken out of crofting tenure. We must understand what these extensions of power involve.
I am sorry, because of a prior and very important engagement, I was not able to be present to hear the Minister reply to the debate in the Scottish Grand Committee. I have no complaint about the spirited way in which he replied to my remarks, but his rather wild statements were unjustified, especially when he said that I had made it clear to him that I
did not begin to know the first thing about this subject. He had not taken the proper trouble to understand the provisions of the Bill or the issues with which it is trying to deal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 24th January 1974; c. 93.]
The Minister then went on to speak about a Labour Party working party

document, with which it would be out of order for me to deal. I read on eagerly to see what I had misunderstood, to see what facts, according to the Minister, I had got wrong. He went on to refer to me twice. The first time was simply to accuse me of hyprocrisy because the working party document of the Labour Party had suggested abolishing the Commission.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is going too wide of the resolution.

Mr. Strang: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This increased cost which the Land Court will incur arises because it is taking over functions which might well have been carried out by the Crofters Commission. I should have thought the Minister would know that one of the consequences of the commission's 1968 proposals would have been the winding-up of the Commission.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that that is out of order too.

Mr. Strang: I am grateful again for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My final point is that when it comes to fixing the price of the croft by the Land Court the Government will have to pay for the court's activities. The Minister said that I was under a basic misconception of the real facts, but he did not say what that misconception was. I therefore challenge the Minister for making wild accusations while being unable to cite one instance from my speech on that Tuesday which was a misconception or was factually inaccurate. I shall be grateful if the Minister will take the earliest opportunity to explain how he justifies his allegations that I had not studied and was not cognisant of the Bill.

11.53 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): The last thing of which I should ever dream of accusing the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is carping criticism. Both sides of the House are well accustomed to the way he deals with this and other Bills, and I have certainly listened with interest to what he said tonight. I


have no doubt whatever that every remark he made was put forward in a constructive sense to try to improve the debates we shall have in Committee, and it is certainly in that spirit that I shall deal with them.
There is one point I should like to make in connection with the tabling of the motion we are discussing.

Mr. Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I made no complaint about the motion we are discussing, which is the Money Resolution.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There are certain procedures in the House which have to be followed before some of the motions we discuss can be taken and of which the right hon. Gentleman has made complaint. If he has cause for complaint, I can assure him that no discourtesy was intended.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I must also pull up the Minister. He is straying outside the terms of the Money Resolution. We must keep to it.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: With my usual courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman I was trying to reassure him, but I take your advice on the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
On the specific details of the Money Resolution, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no intention in the terms of the resolution to crib, to use the right hon. Gentleman's own term, the Scottish Standing Committee in its later deliberations. The resolution has been drawn up in such a way as to cover the purposes of the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) has pointed out how widely drawn is the resolution. There is no intention through its terms in any sense to seek to make our task in the Scottish Standing Committee of improving the Bill difficult or restricted. The right hon. Gentleman was unable to be in the Committee last week and he therefore missed the firm assurance I gave that it is my desire, as I know it is his, to deal with the Bill constructively and to improve it in the course of the Committee stage. The resolution gives us the opportunity to exercise the good intentions which we

have and which I hope the Opposition have.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions about the detail of the resolution and the amount of money to be spent. The money comes basically under three heads. The first is Section 3(10) of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911, which authorises expenditure on the administration and staffing of the Scottish Land Court. Under the Bill, the court is to be given new functions arising, first, from the right being given to crofters to acquire croft land or the site of their dwelling-house and, secondly, to cover the transfer to the court of the power at present exercised by the Secretary of State in relation to the enlargement of crofts and the removal of land from crofting tenure.
The increased responsibility which the Bill proposes to give to the court will necessitate an increase in its staff, but in turn this will be partly offset by a reduction in the Secretary of State's staff. We estimate the net increase in expenditure to be about £46,000 a year.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there were other ways in which this responsibility could be exercised, although I do not think he was questioning the power given to the court in relation to the rights of crofters to acquire croft land but was dealing rather with land being taken out of crofting. He asked what scope there would be for amendments in Committee and what powers might be given in other directions.
Under the 1955 Act there is provision relating both to crofters and to the Secretary of State. It was not suggested in the Grand Committee that powers should be given in other directions, but I do not think that this part of the Money Resolution puts any restriction on our debates in Standing Committee. I hope not.

Mr. Ross: It was the Crofters Commission itself, in an interesting paper, which suggested independent trustees. That would require financing. Does the hon. Gentleman mean that it is ruled out because it does not directly involve the Crofters Commission and the Secretary of State?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Such a suggestion was not made in the Grand Committee. I have considered carefully


whether it could be covered, depending on what kind of amendment might be proposed in Standing Committee as to financing. The Money Resolution is drawn for the purposes of the Bill.

Mr. Ross: When we consider the court's latitude, it is not the Government which decide what is in order. If the Money Resolution is passed, the Table will decide what is in order. That is why it is necessary as far as possible to give enough latitude in the resolution.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Nor is it possible not to draw the Money Resolution in terms of the purposes of the Bill. We are not making it any more difficult in this case than the right hon. Gentleman made it difficult in any Bill which he introduced as Secretary of State. This bears out some of the earlier comments about carping criticism.
I wish to deal with a point about expenditure under Section 22(2) or Section 31(1) of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955 Clause 9 of the Bill provides that financial assistance towards the erection or improvement of dwelling-houses and related services shall continue to be available under Section 22(2) to crofters and their family nominees and successors and cottars for a transitional period of seven years following acquisition of the site of the dwelling-house. Under present legislation a crofter who becomes the owner of his croft or house is ineligible for such assistance. Therefore, this provision applies to those who become owner-occupiers.
The crofting communities have always attached considerable importance to the assistance available for the erection and improvement of croft houses and the continued availability of such assistance has been much welcomed by them. The seven-year extension should allow ample time for the crofter who acquires his house site to replace or improve his substandard house before his eligibility for assistance runs out.
Taking account of the fact that those who apply for assistance under Clause 9 would in any event have been eligible for housing grant and loan had they not purchased the house site, the effect of the new provision will simply be to accelerate expenditure which would otherwise have

taken place over a longer period rather than create new expenditure. The resulting increase in expenditure is estimated at £75,000 per annum in the seven years following enactment of the legislation and decreasing thereafter as those who purchased their house sites in the early years of the legislation become ineligible for further housing assistance.
There is also provision in Clause 9 for extending the range of assistance available under Section 22(2) and 31(1) of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955, including roads, water and electricity supplies. Assistance for such works is already available to crofters through schemes made under Section 22(1) of the 1955 Act but subject to the requirement that they are necessary for the purpose of aiding and developing agricultural production. This has had the effect of excluding from eligibility small crofts with very little stock where the main need for roads or an electricity supply is as an appurtenance of the croft house. The clause therefore transfers these items to Section 22(2) of the 1955 Act and thereby removes the criterion of agricultural justification. The increase in expenditure resulting from this transfer is likely to be fairly small—we estimate about £5,000 per annum.
That leads me to the third heading of the Money Resolution, namely, the amendment to Schedule 1 to the 1955 Act, which is to enable the Secretary of State to pay pensions and compensation to members of the Crofters Commission. Because the provision will be applicable only to certain members of the commission, expenditure is unlikely, on current scales of remuneration, to exceed £1,500 in any year in which payment is required to be made. The only exception would be in the circumstances for which there is provision when a lump sum payment had to be made to a person ceasing to be a member of the commission. As was explained on Second Reading, there is nothing unusual in the provision. It is common to all Bills recently introduced concerning statutory bodies such as the Crofters Commission.
I am sorry that I do not have time to deal with all the points which have been raised. However, I hope that I have dealt sufficiently with the detailed questions.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to confer new rights on crofters and cottars to acquire subjects tenanted or occupied by them; to confer rights on crofters to share in the value of land resumed by landlords; to make further provision as to financial assistance for crofters, cottars and certain owner-occupiers of crofts; to amend the law with respect to common grazings; to extend the powers of the Scottish Land Court; to make provision for pensions and compensation for members of the Crofters Commission; and for connected purposes, it is expedient to authorise—

1. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act in the expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under—


(a) section 3(10) of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911;
(b) section 22(2) or 31(1) of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955;
(c) Schedule 1 to the said Act of 1955 in the payment of pensions or compensation to members of the Crofters Commission;


2. The payment into the Consolidated Fund of all sums received by the Secretary of State by virtue of the said Act of the present Session.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Ordered,

That Mr. David Price be added to the Committee of Public Accounts.—[Mr. Jopling.]

RACE RELATIONS AND IMMIGRATION

Ordered,

That Mr. Barney Hayhoe be discharged from the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration and that Mr. John Cordle be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Jopling.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jopling.]

HARROW (INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE)

12.5 a.m.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am grateful for the opportunity of raising a matter of some importance to those who live in the London borough of Harrow. This cannot be said to be a unique occasion, but it is fairly unusual in that we have present on the Government Front Bench my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Anthony Grant), who is also, of course, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Since my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) is also present, Harrow can be said to be 100 per cent. represented in this debate.
Understandably, the House is preoccupied with grave national issues, such as the mining dispute and the crisis which the nation now faces. This also applies to the citizens of Harrow, who are extremely anxious and worried about the situation and hope that the miners will be prepared to accept a reasonable settlement. I mention that matter in parenthesis to underline the fact that that is the preoccupation in many areas throughout the country. But I wish to emphasise that there are other industrial and commercial matters which are preoccupying my constituents in Harrow, East—and, indeed, I know that this can be said of the constituents of all three Harrow Members of Parliament now present.
Harrow, as an outer London borough, is primarily residential and, therefore, to a considerable extent lacks industry and commerce. This problem is particularly pronounced in Harrow, and this is my reason for seeking in this debate to draw attention to our difficulties. Harrow has a lower element of industry and commerce within its own area than have any of the other outer London boroughs. There are many statistics to back up my statement, although I shall not attempt to use them in this short debate because time will not allow me to do so. However, it is interesting to note that in the total "workplace"—which is the term used in the last population census—of the London borough of Harrow only about one-third of the population resident in the borough of Harrow actually work in the borough itself. This


is to be compared with a figure of 40 per cent. or more as the average for the outer London boroughs in the Northwest London area. The other two-thirds of the population in Harrow go to work elsewhere. Large numbers of the people of Harrow commute, often in difficult conditions, to other workplaces in London. There is an enormous movement of Harrow's population out of the area every day. This raises questions of balance in any community, and certainly in Harrow there is a need for an improvement in this balance.
It is fair to acknowledge the conflicting considerations by putting on record the outstanding and favourable characteristic that Harrow has a very low unemployment figure, and we all appreciate this fact. I know that we Harrow Members of Parliament have worked closely together on employment matters connected with industry and commerce in our constituencies. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West for what he has done. The employment figure is very encouraging, and long may this situation continue. I accept that we must also bear in mind the shorter working week, but there is still the underlying reality that in Harrow employment opportunities are more limited than they are elsewhere.
Also to be considered is the question of the rate burden on domestic ratepayers, and this applies with greater force in Harrow than in many other London boroughs. We must bear in mind that local authorities must reckon with future increases in local government expenses and the consequent increase in domestic rates. There are high rateable values in the borough, but some domestic ratepayers will be hard pressed in the future. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will say a word about local authority expenditure. We all hope that the Harrow authority will do its best to contain expenditure and to implement the necessary reductions in 1974–75 from the programme of cuts announced before Christmas.
I regret that the Socialist-controlled authority in Harrow, with a miniscule majority, has not done more for the borough since gaining control in the last local elections. It has been very complacent. It has not approached the prob-

lem of industry and commerce in the borough with any energy. It is disappointing that it has not made realistic and concrete suggestions, although I acknowledge that there have been meetings and discussions on the subject. But I feel that more could be done. The GLC has a policy of officially supporting greater development for the outer London boroughs, and in that context I am anxious to know whether my hon. Friend can give us any information about the IDC policy. I know that there has been a welcome relaxation in recent times, but I like to feel that there will be more scope in an area like Harrow for the use of IDCs in the future.
I attach far more importance to another aspect of development in a borough like Harrow, however, which is the question of office development permission. At the moment, there is a temporary stop on the issue of new permissions, and that is a rational policy which I believe to be widely supported. But I like to feel that this will not continue into the long-term future and jeopardise the scope for office development in Harrow.
Harrow is not really suitable for industrial development on any large scale. There is not the population available. It would be nice to provide a modest increase in certain industrial jobs, possibly with one or two additional industrial enterprises coming to the borough. But it is in office development that greater scope exists, especially in Central Harrow where the Harrow centre redevelopment scheme has been under discussion for far too long. I hope those discussions will proceed more rapidly in the future.
When one considers all the various aspects of the structural future of a borough like Harrow, a number of salient features emerge. I say this having had many discussions in my constituency, and having discussed it with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West, with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, with representatives from all parts of the life of the borough, with local authority officials, and so on. My overwhelming conclusion is that the citizens of Harrow, above all, want its basic intrinsic character to remain unchanged. It is a residential borough. It has developed over many years since before the war as a commuter's residential dormitory area for


people working in the centre of London and in the boroughs round Harrow where there is more industrial development already for historical reasons. That is the overwhelming consensus of the citizens of Harrow.
At the same time, there is scope for getting away from the imbalance in development, with an increasing incidence of what might be called residential exclusiveness at the expense of any non-residential development. Although the scope for industrial development must be severely limited, there is scope for commercial development, even if it seems axiomatic that commercial office development will be clustered and concentrated in that part of the borough known as Harrow Town rather than in outlying areas.
The other salient feature is that if the character is to be preserved but the existing imbalance is to be rectified to a moderate extent with Government and official GLC support—bearing in mind that that imbalance has worsened in the past few years—a compromise must be maintained by preserving the green belt. I appreciate that this matter is not within my hon. Friend's departmental sphere, but I hope that he may be able to tell me something about it. I mention the matter because I recently noticed in the local Press that some small areas of green belt in both Harrow, East and Harrow, West are to be earmarked for development, whereas several months ago I understood from my right hon and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that the additional green belt land to be taken for housing purposes, announced in the autumn, would not apply to Harrow in any way.
It would be easy for everybody to assume that the status quo could continue without difficulty. There are demands by people in Harrow for expenditure by the local authority. Yet we all know that, because of other conditions, that expenditure will have to be contained.
I hope that my hon. Friend will give me some information about rate support for domestic ratepayers who will be increasingly hard pressed in future. We had a sizeable rate increase under the Socialist-controlled local authority last time. I hope that the rates will be contained and that the increase will be modest next time.

I hope, too, that those in the local authority responsible for the future development of Harrow will always have regard to preserving the character of the area when considering the need to attract commerce primarily and, to a lesser extent, some industry into the borough, with the basic, unavoidable and highly attractive criteria attaching to all that, and to those developments bringing in and offering employment opportunities to people already resident, not to people who have to travel into the borough from outside, thus adding to the congestion and pressures. That will relieve some reluctant commuters out of Harrow every morning of the need to do that.
These are serious, though local, matters on which I hope that my hon. Friend will reply positively tonight.

12.17 a.m.

Mr. John Page: As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) has pointed out, this is a pan-Harrow, an inter-Harrow and a trans-Harrow occasion. I congratulate him on having raised this important subject and say, because we have had no preparatory talks in depth on this matter, that I agree with everything that he has said tonight.
In Harrow, West there is virtually no manufacturing industry at all. The commercial side is largely confined to the retail trade and services. I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree that, as I have said in the past, there are more people in the world who would rather live in Harrow than anywhere else. London is the greatest conurbation in the world, North-West London is the most popular part of the world, and Harrow, West—I do not wish to be controversial—is the most popular part of Harrow. Therefore, we have a particular responsibility here.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East tended to point out that the residents of Harrow have a schizophrenic attitude to development in the borough. He said that more people go out of Harrow every day to their work than from any other borough in London. That means that the narrowest belt of industrial and commercial ratepayers leave a larger burden on domestic residents. I hope that we shall hear about the Government's attitude to future rate support.


Although the residents of Harrow do not like long journeys every day to their work, they do not want to see Harrow subtopia-ised. They would prefer to see their communities unaltered and unchanged, particularly, as my hon. Friend said, in the preservation of sensible and real parts of the green belt.
There is financial advantage to private residents and commercial concerns in Harrow in further commercial development, but it must not be introduced at the sacrifice of the character and appearance of Harrow in general. This means that we hope that the Government will go for conservation of amenities. That conservation should be in the forefront of any proposals that my hon. Friend may make tonight on behalf of the Conservative Government.

12.21 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) for raising the subject tonight and to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) for his contribution. It is, I believe, a rather unusual experience for the Minister replying to an Adjournment debate to have a constituency interest in it. I cannot find a precedent for it, certainly not during my time in this Government, but I do find myself in the position of sympathising with the views which my hon. Friends have so ably expressed on behalf of the borough which we all represent, while at the same time I recognise the importance of the Government policies on which they have commented.
Trends in industry and commerce in London have been a cause of some concern to the GLC and the London boroughs, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development met a deputation on this subject last summer. The more local concern was voiced by a deputation which my hon. Friends brought to see me last November. The ground is thus quite well rehearsed and tonight we can do little more than put it upon the public record, for I am sure my hon. Friends will realise that there has been little change in the situation since November, except the fundamental change of the industrial action by the miners and the train drivers. The best

service that can be rendered to industry and commerce, and every man, woman and child in Harrow, London and the country is for those two sections of industry to return to full-time working.
I propose to deal with the matters my hon. Friends have raised first in the London context. Some parts of London have been affected by a series of unconnected closures within a small area. Inevitably there must be change. Buildings and machinery wear out; some businesses prosper but others do not. We cannot expect any community, Harrow or anywhere else, to remain static if it is to prosper.
London is fortunate in not being heavily dependent on one or two industries—the same applies to Harrow—with all the consequences that brings when one falls on hard times. Such dependence is one of the problems of the assisted areas, where unemployment rates are so much higher than in London. London is the largest manufacturing centre in the United Kingdom and benefits in many ways from its diversity of employment.
The latest figures I have, for December 1973, show unemployment rates in individual development areas averaging from 3·5 per cent. to 5·0 per cent. compared with a mere 1·1 per cent. in the GLC area. While vacancies are about one third of the number unemployed in the development areas taken as a whole, there are more than twice as many vacancies in London as there are unemployed people. I entirely appreciate that we are talking about human beings, not cyphers, but I stress that the scale of the problem is different and that London has little to complain about.
As my hon. Friends have mentioned, there is the considerable impact of the travel-to-work habits of Londoners. We all know that there are very large movements of people between boroughs, apart from the many people who live outside the GLC area but work within it. But this has to be seen in the context of our policy for industry as a whole. Therefore, I should like to comment on the policy on industrial development certificates, which has been the subject of some controversy and has been specifically referred to tonight.
It has been said many times—I repeat it now—that it has been the policy of


successive Governments since the 1930s to assist the areas of worst unemployment. Since the 1940s the chosen means have been the financial inducements payable by the Government combined with the IDC control which was introduced in 1948. Both of these have had some influence on the decisions of firms to locate away from the South-East and in the assisted areas. As a Government we shall continue to promote the establishment and expansion of industry in the assisted areas. At the same time, however, we recognise that there can be sound reasons why particular firms should settle or expand in the more congested areas.
It is sometimes suggested that the IDC control that we operate is in some ways inflexible. That is not true. But even if it were, compared with our policy, the policy adopted by the previous Government would not have been inflexible; it would have been rigor mortis. When we come to offices the exemption limit below which no certificate was needed, within the GLC area, was only 3,000 square feet, which is an area just smaller than this Chamber. That limit was set in 1966. The present Government raised the limit first to 5,000 square feet in December 1970 and then to 10,000 square feet in July 1972. Further, as part of the regional policy changes of that year, we also made IDCs more readily available for schemes of modernisation and efficiency involving little additional employment.
These relaxations will themselves have removed from our scrutiny some smaller projects which might have been secured for the assisted areas, and they have also made it easier for many firms to plan their expansion programmes. This has generally been welcomed by industry.
It has been suggested sometimes that industrialists are inhibited from applying for an IDC because they do not think that their application will be successful. I have not seen any evidence to suggest that this happens on a significant scale. There is no need for it if the firm is convinced of the soundness of its case. No firm need hesitate to make an application. Each one is examined very carefully by my Department with the firm concerned, so that all relevant information and considerations can be brought to bear in reaching a decision. It is an

indication of the care with which this is done, and of the limited number of projects which are genuinely mobile, that the refusal rate for IDC applications since July 1972 has been less than 9 per cent. for the Greater London area.
I turn to the specific question of Harrow. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East has referred to the imbalance of employment in Harrow. He was referring to an analysis from the 1966 census, showing that there are fewer jobs in the borough than there are resident workpeople—in round numbers, some 60,000 jobs and 105,000 workers only 35,000 of whom work in the borough. In other boroughs the pattern is the other way round.
But this is a matter of history, of the way in which London has been developed. If he looks at Harrow and his constituency, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East will see large areas—for instance, from the Edgware Road across to Queensbury and out to Stanmore—which were developed during the 1920s and 1930s as dormitory areas for commuters, by their own choice. My constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West were also developing in the same way during that period.
Without going into details—because a different Department deals with the matter—I should like to say that we would all wish, including myself, to adhere to the green belt policy. This is important. But it means that there is little room left in which new industrial development can take place. I wonder, too, whether there is the labour available in the borough to man many new enterprises. In Harrow, even the register of unemployed is nearly doubled by the number of vacancies, and there are many more unregistered vacancies appearing every week in the columns of the Harrow Observer. Therefore, the scope is limited for industrial development in this respect. As regards industrial development in Harrow, I assure my hon. Friend that we will look carefully at all applications for IDCs and evaluate them against our normal criteria, with which my hon. Friends will be familiar and which we summarised in a Guide to the IDC Control which was published in "Trade and Industry" last June.
I turn to the question of clerical work and office development. My hon. Friends indicated that the main imbalance concerns clerical jobs. This brings us straight to the control operated through the office development permit system administered by the Department of the Environment.
My hon. Friend is probably familiar with that Department's general approach. I am informed that it has been the Department's tendency to approve custom-built proposals for a named user where the applicant has a particular tie to the area and where existing offices are not available and to approve speculative schemes which are basically rebuilding schemes or which contain substantial identifiable planning advantages. In addition, applications from named users demonstrating a need to move from central to outer London may be approved. In general, speculative development with no outstanding public advantage has been most unlikely to attract approval. Although this has been the general approach, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said on 18th December last that there would be a ban on the issue of ODPs for the time being. This is to lessen the demands on the construction industry so that more resources can be channelled into house building which is necessary for Harrow as well as for the rest of the country.
In spite of this temporary standstill, applications can still be submitted for processing; and, putting on my constituency hat, I shall certainly join my hon. Friends in helping Harrow in this respect.
The question of the rate support grant, to which both my hon. Friends referred, is also a matter for the Department of the Environment. It is true that Harrow has rather less commercial and industrial property than some other parts of London. Nevertheless, Harrow's rateable value per head of population is still high in comparison with local authorities generally, and as a result Harrow does not receive the resources element of the rate support grant in the current year.
Just before Christmas the Government had to take action to restrict the domestic element as a result of the energy crisis. In consequence, local authorities were told that they would have to accept further reductions in their expenditure for 1974–75; but this still allows for a modest growth. Of course, local authorities will be faced with problems in achieving these reductions, but the Government in their rate support grant settlement are making available generous domestic relief, and this should ensure that, provided that local authorities make the necessary reductions, no domestic ratepayer need face increases of more than about 9 per cent.
It is not possible to say yet what will happen to rates in 1974–75 because the rate equalisation arrangements which operate in London will have to be reviewed in the light of the new Government grant arrangements. I understand that the London Boroughs Association is considering proposals which might provide some additional assistance to Harrow.
Both my hon. Friends have rendered a great service to the borough by raising this important subject of Harrow in the House tonight. It is the desire of the Government and of myself as much as it is that of my hon. Friends to obtain the right balance for the citizens of our borough, and, indeed, of London. Harrow is one of the healthiest and most prosperous of boroughs. It has a character of its own. It is the envy—as one who is concerned with regional development, I am able to tell my hon. Friends this—of many less fortunate areas of the country. Like my hon. Friends, I am proud to represent part of the borough. It is vital that it maintains that reputation and that it has the proper balance of activities in accordance with the wishes and needs of all its citizens. It will be my purpose to see that it does so in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to One o'clock.